BCC Minutes 09/24/2003 RSeptember 24, 2003
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples Florida, September 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 districts as have been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:05 a.m. in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Tom Henning
Donna Fiala
Jim Coletta
Frank Halas
Fred Coyle
ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Administrator
Michael Pettit, County Attorney
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
September 23-24, 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 SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL
LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS".
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
September 23-24, 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 IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
0
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
B. September 2, 2003 - Special Meeting
C. September 4, 2003 - BCC Budget Heating
D. September 4, 2003 - Pelican Bay Budget Hearing
SERVICE AWARDS
4. PROCLAMATIONS
Ao
Be
Proclamation to designate October 25, 2003 as NAACP Freedom Fund Day.
To be accepted by Laverne Franklin, President of the NAACP.
Proclamation to designate October 8, 2003 as Collier County Walk Our
Children to School Day. To be accepted by Theadore Litwin, Chairman of
the PAC.
Ce
Proclamation to recognize and celebrate the Parks and Recreation
Department and its staff for receiving the 2003 Agency Excellence Award in
2
September 23-24, 2003
Category I. To be accepted by Marla Ramsey, Director of Collier County
Parks and Recreation Department.
5. PRESENTATIONS
Ae
Recommendation to recognize Amy Tozier, Case Manager, Human Services
Department as Employee of the Month for September 2003.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
Ae
Public petition request by Ms. Cindy Kemp to discuss petition documents
regarding Southern Golden Gate Estates Area.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Ae
This item was continued from the September 9~ 2003 BCC Meeting.
Petition CCSL-2001-5/AR- 1922, Brett Moore of Humiston and Moore
Engineering, representing the Vanderbilt Beach Motel; requesting a variance
from the Coastal Construction Setback Line (CCSL) to allow construction of
a multistory residential building, a parking structure, two swimming pools
with extensive paver decking, and a wooden boardwalk connecting to a
handicapped beach access ramp all of which are located on property known
as Vanderbilt Beach Motel with a street address of 9225 Gulfshore Drive
North, in an area generally known as Vanderbilt Beach and more
particularly described as Lot 4, Block A. Connors Vanderbilt Beach Estates
Unit No. 1, located in Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition PUDZ-02-AR-
3242, Jerry Neal of Hole Montes and Associates, representing Frank W.
Cooper and F. C. Properties, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agriculture
and "A-ST" Rural Agricultural with a special treatment overlay to "PUD"
Planned Unit Development to be known as the Mandalay PUD allowing for
84 residential dwelling units for property located on the north side of
Rattlesnake Hammock Road (C.R. 864) and approximately one-eighth mile
east of Polly Avenue in Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 26 East,
3
September 23-24, 2003
Collier County, Florida.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDA-2002-AR-2475,
J. Gary Butler, PE, of Butler Engineering, Inc., representing Bayswater
Falling Waters LLC, requesting a rezone from "E", Estates, and PUD,
Falling Waters PUD, to increase acreage of the existing Falling Waters PUD
from 134.04 to 161.54, change density from 6 dwelling units per acre to 4.95
per acre, and show a change in property ownership, for property located
south of Davis Boulevard and west of the proposed alignment of Santa
Barbara Boulevard in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida, consisting of 161.54 +/- acres.
Ce
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2002-AR-3495,
Christopher D. Hagan, P.E., of Johnson Engineering, representing V.K.
Development Corp., requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUD" Planned
Unit Development to be known as Wentworth Estates PUD. The current
PUD is known as Lely Lakes PUD and consists of residential and
commercial use. The proposed PUD will consist of mixed uses for a
maximum of 1,499 residential dwelling units, 85,000 square feet of
commercial uses, 18-hole golf course and associated amenities. The
property to be considered for this rezone is located on the southwest side of
Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41) approximately 1-1/4 mile southeast of the
intersection of Tamiami Trail East and Rattlesnake Hammock Road (C.R.
864), in Sections 29, 30, 31 and 32, Township 50 South, Range 26 East and
Section 5, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 1558.49+/- acres.
De
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Board of County
Commissioners heard this petition on June 24, 2003 and sent item back to
Collier County Planning Commission for further consideration. PUDZ-
2002-AR-3011, Dwight H. Nadeau of R.W.A., Inc., representing A.R.M.
Development Corporation 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 375
residential dwelling units generally located on the east side of Collier
Boulevard (C.R. 951), approximately ¼ mile south of Immokalee Road
(C.R. 846) in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of
4
September 23-24, 2003
78.07 acres.
me
This item is being continued indefinitely. Board of County
Commissioners need to vote to continue this item indefinitely. This item
requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by Commission members. Petition PUDZ-03-AR-4008, C.
Laurence Keesey, of Young, Van Assenderp, Vamadoe & Anderson, P.A.
representing Waterside Shops at Pelican Bay Trust and WCI Communities,
Inc, requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUD" (Planned Unit Development)
for the purpose of revising the PUD document to relocate 170,343 square
feet of approved, but not yet constructed and uncommitted commercial use
from the north commercial area to the south commercial area, reduce the
approved maximum number residential dwellings by 800 units to a new
maximum of 7,800 residential dwelling units for property located at the
northwest quadrant of the intersection of Tamiami Trail (US-41) and
Seagate Drive in Sections 32 and 33, Township 48 South, Range 25 East,
and Sections 4, 5, 8 and 9, Township 49 South, Range 25 East Collier
County, Florida. (Staff's request)
This item was continued from the July 297 2003 BCC meeting. 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 & Development, Inc., representing
Barton and Wendy Mclntyre 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.
G. This item has been deleted.
II,*
This item was continued from the September 9, 2003 BCC Meeting and
is further continued to the October 28~ 2003 BCC Meeting. CU-2002-
AR-2354, William Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning and Development,
Inc., representing Pastor Roy Shuck of Faith Community Church, requesting
Conditional Use 3 & 4 of"E" Estates to add a child care and pre-school to
the existing Faith Community Church, located at 6455 22"~ Avenue NW,
5
September 23-24, 2003
further described as part of Tracts 15 and 16, Golden Gate Estates Unit 97.
This item to be heard at 5:00 p.m. 9/24/03 and is a companion to Item
10 K. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition by the State of
Florida, by and through the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County's and the Public's
interest in the platted road rights of way in the Southern Golden Gate
Estates, dedicated to the County by the plats of Golden Gate Estates, Units
98, 98A, 99, 99A, 100, 100A, 101 through 113, l13A, 114, l14A, 118, 119,
121,123, 123A, 124, 127, 130, 131,134, 135, 136, 137, 140 through 167,
171 and 172, (Located in Townships 50 and 51 south, Ranges 27 and 28
east) and to disclaim, renounce and vacate a 1.12 mile of road right-of-way
known as Miller BoUlevard Extension located in Sections 25 and 36,
Township 51 south, Range 27 east, and to disclaim, renounce and vacate that
portion of a road right-of-way known as Janes Scenic Drive described in
Official Records Book 76, Page 394, lying northerly of the south line of the
north 150 feet of the south 660 of the southwest quarter of Section 12,
Township 52 south, Range 29 east.
Je
For the Board of County Commissioners to consider the adoption of an
ordinance superceding and repealing Collier County Ordinance Numbers 99-
22 and 00-58, collectively known as the Collier County Ethics Ordinance.
(David Weigel, County Attorney)
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Item being continued to October 14, 2003 BCC Meeting. Discussion
regarding FL Statute 193.703, Reduction in assessment for living quarters of
parents or grandparents. (Commissioner Henning)
Be
This item to be heard after 10E. To appoint a Representative from Collier
County Government to the Southwest Florida Resource Conservation &
Development (SWFRC&D) Council.
C. Approve the Annual Performance Appraisal for the County Manager.
De
Review and approve the FY 2004 Annual Work Plan for the County
Manager.
6
September 23-24, 2003
10.
Ee
Discussion regarding Contracting and Change Order processes.
(Commissioner Henning)
COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
As
Approve the award and subsequent construction contract (subject to the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection Agency's final approval as
necessitated by the State Revolving Fund Loan requirements) for the North
County Water Reclamation Facility expansion to 24.1-million gallons per
day maximum month average daily flow - solids stream, to Westra
Construction Corporation, Project 739502, Bid 03-3539, in the bid amount
of $8,692,500. (Jim DeLony, Public Utilities Administrator)
Adopt a resolution aUthorizing condemnation of fee simple interests in
property required for the construction of stormwater retention and treatment
ponds required for the construction of six-lane improvements to Collier
Boulevard (CR-951) from Golden Gate Boulevard to Immokalee Road.
(Capital Improvement Element No. 37, Project No. 65061). Estimated fiscal
impact: $3,250,000. (Norman Feder, Transportation Services
Administrator)
Award contract to construct the Santa Barbara force main, Bid 03-3534,
Project 73132, 73150 and 73151 in the amount of $6,126,324. (Jim
DeLony, Public Utilities Administrator)
This item to be heard at 5:30 p.m., 9/23/03. Recommendation that the
Board of County Commissioners review the Naples Park Community Plan
survey developed by Trullinger Associates, Inc. to authorize the
dissemination of the survey to Naples Park property owners for
consideration and execution, to authorize the tabulation of survey results by
Trullinger Associates, Inc. upon receipt of returned surveys and to authorize
Trullinger Associates, Inc. to develop a report for presentation to the Board
of County Commissioners. (Joseph Schmitt, Community Development
Administrator)
This item to be heard at 3:00 p.m. 9/23/03. This item was continued
from the September 9~ 2003 BCC meeting. Consideration to support the
Southwest Florida Resource and Conservation and Development
(SWFRC&D) Council's application for Resource Conservation and
Development Program Assistance after hearing a presentation by a
7
September 23-24, 2003
SWFRC&D representative. (Joseph Schmitt, Community Development
Administrator)
F. This item has been deleted.
G. This item has been deleted.
Approve Tourist Development Category "A" Beach
Renourishment/Maintenance Grant applications for fiscal year 2003-2004 in
the amount of $1,140,300. (Jim DeLony, Public Utilities Administrator)
Proposed amendment to Resolution 2003-117 which established a fee
schedule of development related review and processing fees as provided for
in Division 1.10 of the Collier County Land Development Code. (Joseph K.
Schmitt, Community Development Administrator)
Je
Approval of Resolution authorizing the Issuance of Capital Improvement
and Refunding Half-Cent Sales Tax Revenue Bonds Series 2003 in an not to
exceed amount of $51,000,000. (Mike Smykowski, Director, Office of
Management and Budget)
Ke
This item to be heard at 5:00 p.m. 9/24/03 and is a companion to
Item 8I. Approve agreement between the Board of Trustees of the Internal
Improvement Trust Fund, South Florida Water Management District and
Collier County contingent on the Board's approval of Florida Department of
Environmental Protection's Petition to vacate certain rights of way within
the Southern Golden Gate Estates and adjacent state-owned lands.
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
8
September 23-24, 2003
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
Ae
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1)
Approve the transfer of $75,000 from the Current Planning section
FY03 budget to Comprehensive Planning Section FY03 budget to
restore funds previously transferred to fund the Vanderbilt Beach RT
Overlay Study.
2)
Approval of the Satisfaction of Liens for Code Enforcement Board
Case No. 2003-013 and 2002-018.
3)
4)
S)
Board of County Commissioners acting as the Community
Redevelopment Agency. To approve the continued and increased
funding of the Site Improvement Grant and Impact Fee Assistance
Grant programs as recommended by the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle
Local Redevelopment Advisory Board; approve the attached budget
amendment request for the two grant programs; authorize the County
Attorney and staff to draft any necessary agreements, ordinance,
resolution language, or grant application changes.
Approval of new tourism initiatives with a finding that they are in the
public interest by promoting tourism in Collier County and to
authorize payment of all expenses related to those initiatives.
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway (public), drainage,
water and sewer improvements for the final plat of"Creekside
Boulevard West".
6)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of"Veronawalk Phase
1A", and approval of the standard form construction and maintenance
agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "K.A. Wallace
Subdivision".
9
September 23-24, 2003
8)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of"Lenamae
Commerce Park".
9)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway (public), drainage,
water and sewer improvements for the final plat of"Creekside
Commerce Park West - Unit Two".
10)
Approve an agreement between Collier County and the Economic
Development Council of Collier County (EDC) for continuation of the
Economic Diversification Program and provide a contribution to the
EDC of up to $400,000 for fiscal year 2004.
11)
Approval of the amendment to extend the expiration date of the
Tourism Agreements with Kelly Swafford and Roy (KSR) and to find
that they are in the public interest by promoting tourism in Collier
County and to authorize payment of all expenses related to those
agreements.
12)
Notification to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the
submission of the 2004 Collier County Continuum of Care Homeless
Challenge Grant application to the Florida State Office on
Homelessness on September 9, 2003, and informing the Board that the
County Manager signed the application submission on behalf of the
Board due to the date of the grant deadline.
13) This item has been deleted.
14)
Authorize the Chairman to sign a $6,845 agreement (of which $3,200
will be reimbursable) with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to fund
wetland plantings and an educational sign in Lake Avalon.
15)
Approve and ratify a Tourism Agreement with the City of Naples for
the monitoring of Doctor's Pass, Project 90537, in the amount of
$10,580.
16)
Approve and ratify a Tourism Agreement with the City of Naples for
T-Groin Monitoring, Project 90539, in the amount of $69,176.
17)
Board of County Commissioners acting as the Community
Redevelopment Agency. To approve the allocation of $25,000 from
10
September 23-24, 2003
Fund 187 for the purchase and installation of street lights along Davis
Boulevard in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment District.
18)
Recommendation that the Board approve offsite removal of fill not to
exceed 10,000 cubic yards from the existing site known as the Marete
Excavation, bounded on the east and south sides by vacant land zoned
agricultural and on the north end west sides by occupied land zoned
agricultural on the condition that all the fill removed must go to the
Habitat for Humanity site known as Charlee Estates.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
Approval of Bid #03-3558, Lely Golf Estates MSTU Roadway
Grounds Maintenance in the amount of $42,495.30 to Green Heron
Landscapes, Inc.
2)
Board approval to terminate primary vendor, Hines Landscaping,
under Contract #03-3491 - "Retention Pond Mowing" and award
remainder term of the contract to secondary vendor, Southern
Services.
3) Board approval of Adopt-a-Road Program Agreements.
4)
Accept a grant of a perpetual, non-exclusive drainage easement and
accept a grant of a perpetual, non-exclusive access easement to
provide for access and regular maintenance by County staff to one of
the canals in the Rock Creek basin. Located in Section 1, Township
50 south, Range 25 east.
5)
The Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC)
authorizing the supplement for the Trip and Equipment Grant with the
Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD).
6)
Approve developer agreement with Collier Land Development, Inc.
for proportionate fair share of costs associated with the future Lely
Canal Storm Water Improvements Project subject to developer
complying with all conditions of the agreement imposed by the
County.
11
September 23-24, 2003
7)
Approve a budget amendment to shift funding from Impact Fees to
Gas Tax for Goodlette Frank Road Project (60134).
8)
Request Board approval of Landscape, Irrigation, and Maintenance
Agreement among Collier County, Florida, William T. Higgs, and
White Lake Commons Association, Inc. for the beautification of
White Lake Corporate Park adjacent to White Lake Boulevard.
9)
Approve a Work Order for $966,820 for the construction engineering
and inspection services by KCCS for the Golden Gate Parkway Phase
II Project, Livingston Road to Santa Barbara Boulevard, Project No's.
60027A and 60027B, RFP No. 00-3184.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1)
Approval of non-disturbance agreement with Florida Power and Light
Company for property located at the raw water booster station in the
Tamiami wellfield.
2)
Approval of a contract amendment with the South Florida Water
Management District to continue participating in surface water quality
monitoring of Big Cypress Basin in the amount of $300,000.
3)
Approve a budget amendment transferring funds from Mandatory
Trash Collection Fund (473) Reserves for payment to haulers for the
residential mandatory trash collection and disposal program. Total
funds needed from Reserves are $76,000.
4)
Award Bid #03-3519 and approve budget amendment for the purchase
of two skid steer loaders for the recycling centers to Nortrax
Equipment for the total amount of $50,504.
5)
Approve Work Order CDM-FT-03-02 for engineering services to add
one new public water supply well to the Tamiami wellfield in the
amount of $113,893, Project 70158.
6)
Award a contract to Southwest Utility Systems, Inc. for construction
of the Vanderbilt Beach Road reclaimed water main, Bid 03-3529,
Project 74034, in the amount of $845,415.
12
September 23-24, 2003
7)
Approve Work Order CDM-FT-01-02 for utility engineering services
related to resolving claims on the Golden Gate Wellfield Reliability
Construction Contract in the amount of $36,000, Project 70066.
8)
Approve Work Order #VL-02-10 with Victor J. Latavish Architect,
PA, in the amount of $89,500 for professional services associated with
renovations for the Public Utilities Operations Center, Project
numbers 70059 and 73072.
9)
Approve amendment 1 to Work Order HM-FT-02-02-A for
engineering services during construction of the Western Wastewater
Interconnect, Phase II, Project 73076, in the amount of $65,480.
Board approval of budget amendments recognizing positive carry
forward of a $60,414 vari~ince in the Pollution Clean-up and
Restoration Fund (108) and transferring $60,414 to Water Pollution
Control Fund (114).
11)
Approve a purchase order in the amount of $131,000 and the required
budget amendment for Angie Brewer and Associates (ABA), Grant
Advisor, for professional services involving the procurement and
administration of the State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan procurement
and associated tasks.
12)
Recommendation to award Bid No. 03-3532, Reinforcement of
Driveways contract to Neubert Construction Services, Inc. and NR
Contractors, Inc. estimated value of $900,000 from the Mandatory
Trash Collection funds.
13)
Approval of Contract No. GC623 Amendment No. 1 with the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) for contract
administration and remediation services for the clean-up of petroleum
contaminated sites throughout Collier County.
14)
Approve a budget amendment in the amount of $100,000 to fund
unanticipated expenses in the North County Regional Water
Treatment Plant Cost Center.
15)
Authorize the Chairman to accept the FY 03/04 Waste Tire Grant
offer in the amount of $31,195 and authorize the Solid Waste Director
13
September 23-24, 2003
to sign the agreement.
16)
Approve staff recommendation to reject Bid No. 03-3524 for pump
station 107 improvements, Project 73945.
17)
18)
Approve annual Rate Resolution to set landfill tipping fees, recycling
center fees, residential annual assessments and commercial waste
collection fees for FY 2003/2004. Total fees budgeted to be collected
from rates approved with this resolution are included in the FY
2003/2004 budgets for Solid Waste Disposal (Fund 470) and
Mandatory Trash Collection (Fund 473).
Approve a budget amendment to reallocate funds between object
codes for the Goodland Water Pumping Station upgrades, project, in
the amount of $70,000.
19)
20)
21)
22)
Request for the Board of County Commissioners to waive the
County's purchasing policy retainage release/reduction criteria by
reducing retainage from 10% to 0% for a component of the South
County Regional Water Treatment Plant, Project 70054.
Adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition by gift or purchase of
temporary construction easements for the Santa Barbara sewer force
main interconnect between the North and South Wastewater service
areas, Project 73132, at a cost not to exceed $55,000.
Approval of a repair/maintenance agreement with Peacock Court
(Subdivision) for a wastewater force main in the County right-of-way.
Board of County Commissioners approval for the purchase and
installation of two replacement hoods in the Inorganic Laboratory in
the amount of $22,304.
23)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners transfer
Capital Project appropriations from an operating account in the
Mandatory Trash Collection Fund (473) and approve the creation of a
Capital Projects Fund for Solid Waste Capital Projects. Transfer
appropriations and expenses of $200,000 in the FY 2002-03 budget
and an appropriation of $200,000 in the FY 2003/04 budget.
14
September 23-24, 2003
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Renewal of an agreement for joint use of facilities with St. John
Neumann High School.
Board approval of a successor agreement to Bid #99-3024
"Prescription Drugs for Social Services".
Award of Bid #03-3565 to Florida Coast Equipment for purchase of
an articulated wheel loader in the amount of $45,947.73.
Approve an amendment to a limited use license agreement between
the Board of County Commissioners and the Naples Junior Chamber
of Commerce,' Inc., allowing for a New Year's Eve event and
fireworks display to replace this year's cancelled Fourth of July event.
Acceptance of Library Long Range Plan, including the current year
action plan and technology plan, and approval of Library State Aid
application. (FY04 Grant Revenue of $350,000.)
Approval of agreement for fiscal year 2003-2004 funding contribution
to the David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. at a cost of
$952,000.
7)
Approve a budget amendment in the Emergency Medical Services
Fund 490 transferring budgeted funds totaling $182,000.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1)
Award Contract RFP 03-3476 for "Eminent Domain Legal Services"
for Fixel, McGuire & Willis; Gray, Harris & Robinson, P.A.; and
Broad and Cassel.
2)
Approval to purchase property, casualty and workers' compensation
insurance and related services for FY 2004.
3)
Authorize staff to utilize state contract and GSA schedule 70 pricing
for Communications and Information Technology hardware and
software.
15
September 23-24, 2003
4)
Report and ratify staff-approved administrative changes to work
orders.
5)
6)
7)
Request to approve Selection Committee ranking of firms for contract
negotiations for RFP 03-3548, "Consultant Services for Developing a
Land and Land Rights GIS Database."
Approve a budget amendment to appropriate building maintenance
special service revenues totaling $60,900 for reimbursement of
operating expenses in fiscal year 2003.
Recommendation to adopt a Resolution approving the 2004 Fiscal
Year Pay and Classification Plan and providing for a general wage
adjustment and merit increase.
8)
Approve Amendment//2 Contract #00-3173, in the amount of
$757,110 for the design of a parking deck (P2) to Spillis Candela
DMJM. The parking deck will be (5) stories containing 1,130 parking
spaces.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1)
2)
3)
Recognize and appropriate Isles of Capri Fire Control District
Protective Inspection Fee Revenue in the amount of $19,000 by
approving the necessary budget amendment.
Approval of an agreement between Collier County, Florida and Dr.
Marta U. Cobum, M.D., Florida District Twenty Medical Examiner
DBA District Twenty Medical Examiner, Inc. to provide Medical
Examiner Services for fiscal year 2004 at a cost of $780,700.
Approve an agreement and adopt a resolution authorizing Collier
County to accept $105,806 from the Florida Department of
Community Affairs for Emergency Management Program
enhancement.
4)
Approval of a Budget Amendment Report - BA.#03-565 in the
amount of $17,600 for improvements at the Immokalee Airport; and
BA #03-570 in the amount of $18,000 to cover personal services for
16
September 23-24, 2003
the remainder of FY-03.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1)
Approve a budget amendment to reallocate amounts among
appropriation categories in the Airport Authority Fund (495).
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1)
Commissioner Fiala request for approval for payment to attend
Leadership Collier Kick Off in Honor of the Class of 2004.
2)
Commissioner Halas' request for approval for payment to attend
NAACP Freedom Fund Banquet, serving a valid public purpose.
the amount of $55.00 to be held on October 25, 2003.
In
3)
Commissioner Henning request for approval for payment to attend the
United Way of Collier County Campaign 2003 Kick-Off.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1)
To obtain approval for the early retirement of principal related to the
Collier County Agricultural Fair and Exposition, Inc. Florida Local
Government Pooled Commercial Paper Loan and the budget
amendment required for payment.
2)
Approve a budget amendment to recognize Wireless 911 revenues in
the amount of $97,000.
3)
Accept a Civil Traffic Infraction Hearing Officer Grant-in-Aid of
$9,710 from the Office of the State Court Administrator and authorize
Chairman to sign the amendment.
4)
Approve a budget amendment transferring funds in the amount of
$100,000 from General Fund Reserves to the paid in lieu of transfer
17
September 23-24, 2003
account in the General Fund.
Ke
Request to authorize the extension of the Tax Roll before completion
of the Value Adjustment Board hearings pursuant to Section 197.323,
FLA. STAT., and Tax Collector's request.
COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
2)
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the acquisition of
Parcel 127 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Elhanon Combs, et
al, Golden Gate Parkway Project No. 60027.
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the fee simple
acquisition of Parcel 181 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Big
Corkscrew Island Fire District, et al., Immokalee Road Project
//60018.
3)
4)
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the fee simple
acquisition of Parcel 183 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Lazaro Herrera, et al., Immokalee Road Project #60018.
This item has been deleted.
6)
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgments relative to the fee taking of
Parcel Nos. 195, 197, 198, 201,202, 208, 21 lA, 214 and 218 for the
Immokalee Road Project (Project No. 60018).
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the fee simple
interest acquisition of Parcel 185 in the lawsuit entitled Collier County
v. Manuel Alvarez, et al., (Immokalee Phase 1 Project, Project No.
60018).
7)
8)
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the fee simple
acquisition of Parcel 186 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Manual Alvarez, et al., Immokalee Road Project 360018.
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
Resolution approving the 2004 Fiscal Year Pay and Classification
Plan, a general wage adjustment (COLA) and merit increase, and the
Policies and Procedures Manual for the Office of the County
18
September 23-24, 2003
Attorney.
9)
Continued from the September 9, 2003 BCC Agenda and is
further continued per staff's request to the October 14, 2003 BCC
Meeting. That the Board of County Commissioners, as the
Governing Body of Collier County and as Ex-Officio Governing
Board of the Isles of Capri Municipal Rescue and Fire Services
Taxing District and the Ochopee Fire District enter into amended
interlocal agreements with independent fire districts for the purpose of
implementing the duties and obligations of the various dependent and
independent fire districts with respect to fire plan review and fire code
inspections for new construction, construction projects and existing
structures within the various districts.
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.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2001-AR-955,
William L. Hoover, of Hoover Planning & Development, Inc., requesting a
rezone from "A" Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be
known as Wolf Creek PUD for a residential project for a maximum of 591
dwelling units on property located along Wolf Road, approximately ½ mile
west of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) and 3/8 mile north of Vanderbilt Beach
Road (C.R. 862) in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida, consisting of 147.69 +/- acres.
19
September 23-24, 2003
Be
Ce
De
go
Fe
Gm
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. SNR-2003-AR-4052,
Peter Goodin, representing Oakes Estates Advisory, Inc., requesting a street
name change from 16th Avenue Northwest to Standing Oaks Lane, which
street is located in Unit 97 of the Golden Gate Estates Subdivision, located
in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. SNR-2003-AR-4053,
Peter Goodin, representing Oakes Estates Advisory, Inc., requesnng a street
name change from 22"d Avenue Northwest to Hidden Oaks Lane, which
street is located in Unit 97 of the Golden Gate Estates Subdivision in Section
29, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. SNR-2003-AR-4054,
Peter Goodin, representing Oakes Estates Advisory, Inc., requesting a street
name change from 20th Avenue Northwest to Spanish Oaks Lane, which
street is located in Unit 97 of the Golden Gates Estates Subdivision, located
in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. SNR-2003-AR-4055,
Peter Goodin, representing Oakes Estates Advisory, Inc., requesting a street
name change from 12th Avenue Northwest to Bur Oaks Lane, which street is
located in Unit 96, of the Golden Gate Estates Subdivision, located in
Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. SNR-2003-AR-4056,
Peter Goodin, representing Oakes Estates Advisory, Inc., requesting a street
name change from 14th Avenue Northwest to Shady Oaks Lane, which street
is located in Unit 96, of the Golden Gate Estates Subdivision, located in
Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. SNR-2003-AR-4057,
Peter Goodin, representing Oakes Estates Advisory, Inc., requesting a street
name change from 18th Avenue Northwest to Golden Oaks Lane, which
street is located in Unit 97, of the Golden Gate Estates Subdivision, located
20
September 23-24, 2003
in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
He
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. SNR-2003-AR-4065,
Peter Goodin, representing Oakes Estates Advisory, Inc., requesting a street
name change from 24th Avenue Northwest to Autumn Oaks Lane, which
street is located in Unit 97 of the Golden Gate Estates Subdivision, Section
29, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition PUDZ-03-AR-
3860, Richard Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson and Wayne
Arnold of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, representing Gateway Shoppes,
LLC, requesting a rezone from "RFS-3" residential single family and the
Henderson Creek "PUD" Planned Unit Development to a new "PUD" to be
known as the Artesa Pointe PUD allowing 280 residential dwelling units of
which 100 percent of the units will be for affordable housing; incorporating
A 37-acre site that is intended to permit commercial uses totaling 325,000
square feet of gross leasable floor area for property located on the south side
of the Tamiami Trail (U.S. 41) and the east side of Collier Boulevard (CR-
951) in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida.
Je
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided b,~ Commission members. PUDZ-2002-AR-2944,
D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., and
Richard Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, representing
Royal Palm International Academy, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural
Agricultural and "A-ST" Rural Agricultural/Special Treatment to "PUD"
Planned Unit Development to be known as Royal Palm International
Academy PUD for an Educational Campus and Residential Community
consisting of up to 650 dwelling units for property located at 6000
Livingston Road, in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County, Florida, consisting of 162.7+/- acres.
Ko
This item was continued from the September 9~ 2003 BCC meeting
This item requires that all participants be sworn in,and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2003-AR-3151
Wayne Arnold and Richard Yovanovich representing Richard Santerre
requesting a rezone from C-3 and RMF-6 to "PUD" Planned Unit
21
September 23-24, 2003
Development known as the Miller Square PUD. This project will consist of
19,000 square feet or less of retail and office commercial uses, located at the
northeast comer of U.S. 41 East and Shadowlawn Drive in Section 11,
Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of
1.9+/- acres.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU-2002-AR-3537,
Nick Stewart of Stewart Mining Industries, requesting Conditional Use "1"
for earthmining in the "A-MHO" Rural Agricultural - Mobile Home
Overlay zoning district pursuant to Section 2.2.2.3 of the Collier County
Land Development Code for property located in Sections 18 and 19,
Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida.
Me
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDA-2001-AR-956
Thomas E. Killen, representing Naples Elks Lodge 2010, requesting a
rezone from PUD to PUD for the Radio Square PUD, adding medical office
as a permitted use, amending the landscape requirements, and providing for
shared parking, for property located on the southwest comer of Radio Road
(CR 856) and Donna Street, in Section 1, Township 50 South, Range 25
East, collier County, Florida, consisting of approximately 9.4 acres.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
22
September 23-24, 2003
September 24, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Board of Commissioners are back in
session.
County manager, where are we at on the agenda today?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, do you want to -- do you want to
say the Pledge of Allegiance to start off the morning?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I always love to say the Pledge of
Allegiance.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So let's -- let's do it. Do you want to
lead us?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Item #1 OM and Item #9E
REPORT AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVE
CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS- DISCUSSED W/ITEM #9E TO
DETERMINE BETTER REVIEW, LEGAL REQUIREMENTS,
PROCESSING, LIABILITY, AND MORE DOCUMENTATION TO
DETERMINE REASONS FOR THE CHANGES TO BE MADE
AND BY WHAT STAFF PERSONEL. COUNTY MANAGER TO
FOLLOW-UP WITH SUGGESTIONS FOR A BETTER PROCESS.
CO'S ARE BROUGHT TO THE BOARD IF THE AMOUNT IS
10% OVER THE AMOUNT ON WORK ORDER AND STAFF
AUTHORIZES AMOUNTS UNDER 10% (W/MONTHLY
REPORT SUBMITTED TO BCC). EACH CHANGE ORDER
SHOULD HAVE A REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE SCOPE OF
WORK AND IF THE DESIGN ENGINEER AND/OR
CONTRACTOR IS IN ERROR IN THEIR
R F,S PONS ll:l II,ITY/DETF, R MINI A TION S -A PPR OVED
Page 2
September 24, 2003
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we left off-- and to -- to do Item
10(m), which is 16(e)(4), which reads, "Report and ratify
staff-approved administrative changes to work orders." That was
pulled at your request, and you also wanted to talk -- your Item 9(e)
when you were doing this item.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let me just go down the list of
change orders and share my concerns. Maybe we could get answers
today or not. I -- you know, I don't know. The first one is for
additional drainages -- drainages added to each end of the bridge.
We -- where was that on-- in what bridge?
MR. CARNELL: For the record, Steve Carnell, your
purchasing and general services director. This was a work order that
was originally issued for improvements to the Halderman Creek
bridge, and specifically beautification of the median on that bridge
was the original scope of work.
And as the work was being completed it was determined jointly
by transportation staff and the contractor that they needed to make
some more improvements to the work they were doing to better lay
out the drainage, and so they went and approved a change order to
increase the contract by $4,200.
And I don't have the technical detail, but essentially it was to
add some drainage to the outer perimeter of the median so that the
water would flow off the bridge more effectively. They were having
some concerns with that, so my understanding was they made that
change of $4,200 on that one.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Was that the scope of the -- the
work, the contract?
MR. CARNELL: Yeah. The scope was to improve the
medians, and it had a drainage component to it. And they essentially
Page 3
September 24, 2003
modified the drainage component. They improved it, and they took it
a little further than what they'd originally designed because they felt
they needed a more efficient system than what they had originally
scoped.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So we -- we hired somebody to
design the, you know, beautification?
MR. CARNELL: Well, yes. This contractor was the contractor
actually making those improvements, and in the process of them
building it they felt the need to expand the drainage a little further, so
they went from a $51,000 job to a $55,000 job -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. CARNELL: -- and made some additional improvements to
the drainage.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's a small addition, but I guess my
concern is -- one of the concerns -- what is the responsibility of the
engineer who designed it? If he was to put the landscaping in, the
irrigation, and drainage, if this is part of the scope, what
responsibility does he have for -- for missing that leg?
MR. CARNELL: Well, again, I -- I think that was a decision
made by transportation staff in which they felt like it was an
improvement to the drainage performance and the functionality of
the system. I don't know that we would say that the old system was
totally inadequate or that the original system -- the original design
was inadequate.
I think it was a matter of for $4,000 we can make it considerably
better while we're doing this job. That's my understanding. I can
verify it if you'd like some more detail on that particular question.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, at -- at the end I think what we
need to do is -- is some changes, and I'll make some
recommendations to see if the board is willing to do that. It is
confusing. I -- what I hear is this is part of the scope, and then I also
hear that transportation decided that we can make some
Page 4
September 24, 2003
improvements to it -- the existing drainage problem, so, you know,
I'm a little confused on that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I ask a question while --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Unless we'll --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- you're still on that subject?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is -- this is paid out of MSTU
dollars; right? Yes, it is. As long as it's paid out of MSTU dollars,
when there's a change order, do -- do they have to go back to the
MSTU advisory board to ask or request those extra dollars?
I realize it's only 4,000, but, I mean, it could be 20,000, and
that's a -- you brought up such a good subject. It's a good time to ask
the question.
MR. CARNELL: Yes, ma'am. And I don't believe that they are
required to. They may very well have because it's an on -- the
MSTU boards are briefed on a monthly basis on the improvement
projects.
Typically the -- the MSTUs -- the advisory boards review all
actions before they come to you. In this case this was approved at
the staff level, so that doesn't necessarily mean that they had to -- that
they had -- there was a strict requirement for them to approve it, but
chances are they were advised and knew about it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But do they -- say, for instance, a
larger figure -- now, in this case I understand the need to do it right
then and there when they found that there was a problem, and I'm
sure the MSTU advisory board-- board would be glad they caught
the problem and fixed it before it cost a lot more money, but if it
were to cost a lot more money is it their responsibility to ask the
advisory board first, or is that handled at a staff level?
MR. CARNELL: Well, the letter of your ordinance says that
the advisory board's primary responsibility is -- they have a-- a strict
responsibility for budgetary approval, so if you're impacting the
Page 5
September 24, 2003
budget right there, yes, they -- the advisory board would need to
approve changes to the budget.
And, again, anything that comes to this board, which would be
your larger change orders, would -- they would see ahead of time and
act on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, then
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It sounds like we -- we really
don't have quite all the answers. I'm glad you brought this up,
Commissioner Henning. Possibly we might want to continue this to
the end of our meeting, okay, and get somebody from transportation
to give us good solid answers on what the advisory board's
responsibility would be in this direction. A suggestion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, my recommendations on
these items -- as long as we get the county attorney to take a look at
it and see if it is -- does match the -- the contract, the scope of the
contract, I'm okay with it, but, again, there's some other things that I
want to bring up later as far as recommendations. I want to go
through all these so we can get some answers, but we can discuss
that, yeah.
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Probably maybe just to
throw a little twist to this game, when you are working with an
engineering project, a lot of times you sit down and figure everything
out, but then when you get into the scope of the whole thing you find
out that once you're on the scene and you're doing an engineering
project there's a lot of things that come to light.
And I'm sure that's probably what happened here in this case,
that it actually ended up to enhance the area because as they got
involved in this thing they found that, hey, if we -- if we just spend a
little extra money here we won't have to come back and redo this
Page 6
September 24, 2003
whole thing again.
And so you've got to look at that aspect of it, and I guess that's
part of the equation that we've got to find out because, as I said, once
you get in an engineering project a lot of times once you get in the
field and start working on it you realize that, hey, if we do just a little
bit of enhancements here with the added cost we won't have to come
back and do the whole project all over again in a couple of years.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I think that's exactly right.
You need some flexibility to do that, but -- but what I'm concerned
about is our change to the procurement or change order policy earlier
this year that required the staff to certify that the change order was or
was not part of the original scope. And -- and if the staff and
management has -- has done that and that has been reviewed then it
meets the requirements of our.change order approval process.
Now, while we might have a quarrel with whether or not you
made the right decision, the -- the important thing is that somebody
made a determination that it was or was not part of the -- the original
scope and, also, to determine whether or not the price that was
charged by the contractor for the change order was reasonable in
view of other market prices for similar work. So I -- I would just ask
if-- if we did that and -- and if that documentation exists.
MR. CARNELL: Yes to all of those and, yes, the
documentation exists.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to direct this question to
Mr. Mitchell from the clerk's office to have him chime in and maybe
give us some oversight on this.
MR. MITCHELL: Our role when it comes to change orders is
very limited in -- in comparison to what your staff does. You know,
we've had meetings with the chairman, and basically once the board
makes the determination through the ratification of these change
Page 7
September 24, 2003
orders our concerns are gone.
You know, I -- I think you've -- you've got a fairly good process
in place. You know, we've looked at some change orders, and we've
had concerns about them, but once this board makes that
determination for all practical purposes our questions are satisfied.
You know, if you go back in time and look at it, the change
order process is -- has evolved over the last year or so. You had a
policy that did not require change orders under 10 percent of the
original contract that come to this board, but through Steve and his
staff, along with the clerk's office, we've modified that particular
arrangement where you guys now have the opportunity in some form
to see every change order that's happening out there.
That meets our requirement, our statutory requirement, for
approval before payment can take place. We're not engineers. We're
not construction managers. What we do is we try to evaluate the
transaction when it comes before us and make a determination if it
meets the legal tests that we have to apply to it. You know, the
determinations that Steve's making or that the engineers are making,
we can't make that determination.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think also maybe another avenue
we may have to look at is on change orders when they do come in
that what we're trying to do is -- we trust the people that work for the
county, and we're trying to empower them, but I also think that we
need to -- to have a handle on change orders, so maybe the -- there
should be a limit as to what the upper limit would be that it has to
come back to the -- the Board of Commissioners.
Now, I'm -- I -- I'm -- I feel comfortable with the 10 percent, but
it maybe should have a cap that once it hits a million or two thou --
two million dollars that that auto -- automatically should throw the
flag up, and it should come back for approval by the Board of
Commissioners.
Page 8
September 24, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But anything under a million
dollars, if it's a change order that-- I -- I feel comfortable with it
because I think we should trust our staff, and we should empower
them, and we shouldn't be cluttered with all this stuff, but when it
gets to a -- up to a maximum of whatever we decide to go by -- my
feeling is a million dollars -- then it should automatically come back.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You mean the maximum amount of
the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
original bid; right?
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
Change order.
-- change order?
Yes.
Not of the -- on the top of the
Right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County manager.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I just -- I just want to bring to
your attention a difference from what we're talking about. We've
been bringing the change orders for contracts to this board for at least
six months that I can -- that I can determine. Okay. Last meeting you
had the changes to the change orders, and we give those to you in
detail. And we can change the ordinance any way the board wants us
to change that, upper limits, whatever that is.
This is the first time we've brought administrative changes to
work orders to the board, and this is a result of that interrelationship
between the cur-- clerk and Steve Carnell's purchasing organization
trying to make our procedures better to make sure you have eyes on
every item that -- that transpires, okay, even if it's been a little bit of
a delegated authority to staff, that you get to see every piece of this
to tighten up our procedures.
And -- and this has been an ongoing effort here for almost a year
now in order to make that happen, and-- and it -- it's been very
Page 9
September 24, 2003
successful. So this is the first time you've seen administrative
changes to work orders. I just want to make sure that you -- that you
know what you're looking at.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: While -- while we're discussing that,
let -- let's -- the -- the item that I had on the commissioners' agenda
was some recommendations on how we do this, so I, you know --
you know, we're -- we're going out of step, and that's fine.
I think it's the duty of the Board of Commissioners -- and we
accepted that duty -- to see all the change orders to these contracts.
The thing that -- I need to make a determination of whether it fits the
contract or if somebody is liable or should be liable for the changes.
And -- and this one instance that I said was, well, what's --
what's the responsibility of the designer? You know, did he not see
there was going to be a drainage problem? You know, I don't know.
And that's what we should do is, if there is a responsibility to
somebody that we hire and give money to that -- that -- that we put
that responsibility on that firm.
What I need to determine whether we need to charge the county
manager on -- on going out and -- and seeking that information, the
determination of whether a design engineer is responsible or a
contractor or whatever is more backup material on these change
orders; that's all. You know, I just want more information to make a
sound decision.
And the next thing is -- and I know that the county manager's
staff is working on contract management, but we've got different
kind of contracts out there, whether it be sewer, water, roads, you
know, buildings. I know there's improvements to that process. I
think the board deserves an update where we're at at that process.
That -- that's all I want, Commissioners. I don't want to push off the
responsibility -- our responsibility to our staff. I think this process is
good. Just a little bit more information.
MR. MUDD: More detail.
Page 10
September 24, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. One of the things that I've
been concerned with going right along that very same line -- I think
staff does all that they can do with the information that's given to
them, but I think that many times the -- the bidders bid low counting
on being able to submit change orders later on in the process to get
extra money, and -- and I think that's, No. 1, unfair bidding and, No.
2, that puts us at a disadvantage.
So the same with staff. You count on one budget price, and then
all of the sudden they come up with one change order after another,
especially on the roads, but certainly on many other things as well,
and that concerns me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Uh-huh. It does, and it should. The
-- the other thing is why -- why does Steve Carnell have to stand up
there and give us answers? Why shouldn't -- why can't it be the
person who requested the change order? You know, they have more
information about it than, I mean, Steve Carnell. And, you know, no
-- no offense to Steve -- Steve Carnell, but we can get to the answer
much quicker.
And I don't know if the -- the suggestions now made is what the
-- the majority of the board wants or if they want to add on it, but I
would welcome their input on that and -- Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think you're heading in the
right direction. Maybe we can give this direction to the county
manager and bring it back to us with some suggestions at the next
meeting.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: I certainly can.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But in the meantime I would like
more information on the change orders. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think it would be worthwhile if
Page 11
September 24, 2003
you explained the difference between an administrative change order
approval process and -- and all the others.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
MR. CARNELL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before -- Steve, before you start, let
-- let's just answer the question as far as direction.
Commissioner Fiala, your position is on more information, an
update on contract management, and having the person who requests
the change orders be here to give us that information ...
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I -- I think that's a good idea,
and I think if-- as we're doing this contract management if we see
one company repeatedly going in for change orders yet always the
lowest bidder that ought to be a red flag on the field for us.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, sure.
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I feel the same way as
Commissioner Fiala on that subject, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: If you could answer Commissioner
Coyle's question.
MR. CARNELL: Yeah. Let me harken back to what
Commissioner Halas said because our-- our current practice -- and
the answer to that question lies in what the commissioner referenced
in the sense that we have structured a policy and a practice now that
-- as Jim mentioned, this is an evolving practice, and we are
attempting to balance the need to move timely and efficiently in our
contract management including necessary and appropriate changes to
contracts against appropriate oversight and assurance to the public
and to this board that we are spending dollars wisely and
appropriately.
So what we've done -- and this report that is the Agenda Item
16(b)(4) is -- specifically was an attempt to report to you changes to
administrative work orders, and what that means is two things.
Page 12
September 24, 2003
When we say "administrative," that means something that's approved
by the staff but reported to the board for oversight purposes.
So if we go back our purchasing policy says that change orders
in excess of 10 percent come to this board. There is a presentation,
and the board votes up or down before we enact the change. We will
not enact the change without the board's direction to do so if we're
spending more than 10 percent of the prevailing contract amount.
If we're less than 10 percent, historically the staff has been
approving those change orders, and they haven't been coming to this
board at all in any way, shape, or form, or vehicle. Striking a
balance -- and I think alluding to what Commissioner Halas again
said -- was that we are trying to create a process where the staff can
move on the smaller change orders and address them in a timely
manner, but the board oversees; that is, and gets a report of what's
happened the previous month with all those changes.
So there's that constant oversight. I would liken it to Ronald
Reagan's phrase for arms control, "trust and verify." We send people
out on the understanding we tell them to do -- to act, to be
empowered, but we tell you within a reasonable amount of time what
we did, and so there's an opportunity for some ongoing dialogue for
your point, CHAIRMAN HENNING: I need some more
information. I want to have a better feel of what's happening here.
I'm -- I'm okay with the process in general perhaps, but I need some
more information, and I need to be able to assure the public that
we're -- that we as commissioners are attune to what's happening and
we are watching, all right?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
MR. CARNELL: So that's what we're trying to achieve as well.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good.
MR. CARNELL: Now, in this particular instance, what the
county manager referred to a moment ago is we -- we have
project-specific contracts that this board awards every Tuesday when
Page 13
September 24, 2003
it meets, a million dollars to build this building, $2 million to put in
this water plant, whatever it may be.
And then we have -- those contracts go through their own
bidding process, and then we have other contracts where we obtain
services in advance of a contractor or some type of consultant or a
provider of service -- typically it's a service agreement -- for services
of a more general and broad nature, and we basically have those
people in the bullpen, if you will, under contract, warmed up, ready
to go.
And when we have a smaller project, typically 50,000-,
$100,000-type construction project, we will often issue work orders
to these already preapproved contractors. This board has established
those contracts in advance, and we simply have to negotiate or obtain
a price from them to do the work, verify the pricing. Typically we
have some type of price schedule in the original contract, and we
compare one against the other to be sure that it's appropriate pricing,
and-- and then we issue a work order.
That, again, saves time, and it also enables us to prequalify our
contractors because we can pick people on the front end based on
qualifications, put a little more emphasis on that to begin with, and
then we can have a price competition among the people who we --
we pre -- we prequalify.
So that -- that's what this is. When you see the word "work
order," that's what it's referring to. It's referring to an order against an
already existing general contract for some type of services whereas
you have these project-specific contracts that are awarded separately
for the larger projects.
So what Jim Mudd was referring to was the fact that we've been
reporting change orders to those project contracts since April, but this
month in discussion with Jim's office we began reporting the changes
to the work orders as well, and in future months you're going to see
them both together. They'll be separate reports but in the same
Page 14
September 24, 2003
agenda item, and we'll be summarizing both.
And, again, it's the same concept: trust and verify. We take the
actions, but we tell you shortly thereafter what we did so that this
board is able to maintain general oversight of what's happening on
these smaller transactions. The larger ones we bring to you. We
don't act until you vote up or down on them.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just to go back to what
Commissioner Fal -- Fiala related to, and I'm -- I'm hoping that staff
looks at this as -- we have bid these contracts out. Do -- does the
staff look at the tracking of these contracts to see if the people that
are the lowest bidder come back and try to always put it to us as far
as change orders to boost the total contract? Do you look at it to see
if there is such a trend as that?
MR. CARNELL: We do. We look at it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. CARNELL: We look at any -- any request for any type of
change, always look at the merit of what's prompting it, what's
caused it. And if we have a contractor with -- who has developed
some kind of reputation for doing that, then we're going to consider
that in future award actions, and so that's always analyzed.
I will tell you a number of our changes -- and this is something
we can follow up with the followup communication back to the
board. I'd like to give you a little more explanation of how we do
select contractors, what kinds of thought goes in the process at the
staff level --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
MR. CARNELL: -- and also how we deal -- a little bit more
detail with that type of issue when we've got somebody. We actually
have a situation right now with a contractor that we're -- a staff
recommendation has been made to -- to pass them over and not
award the contract to them. It was for a fairly large -- large project.
Page 15
September 24, 2003
It was on yesterday's agenda, and it was pulled because it's being
protested by that contractor, but the staff argument is that this
contractor has not performed well previously on contracts.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good for you.
MR. CARNELL: So I'm going to hear the protest. I have to tell
you right now I'm neutral for the moment because I have to hear the
protest first, but it may very well be that this board will get a
recommendation to reject a low bidder on a project and go with the
second low bidder.
So that's the -- I only mention that to tell you that that type of
activity's happening all the time at the staff level, and it's somewhat
transparent to you-all. Sometimes it gets worked out; sometimes it
lands on your diocese to deal with.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, just -- what I was trying to
make sure of is that we did have a check-and-balance system --
MR. CARNELL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- already in place just for this
purpose.
MR. CARNELL: But I can tell you that it can be further
enhanced, and we will continue to work on that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: Now, Commissioner, in that particular instance
we used to have a thing called Bernie on the gurney or something
'like that. What do you call it?
MR. CARNELL: That's our vendor performance evaluation
system that we affectionately named after a former productivity
committee member, General Bernard Weiss retired from the United
States Air Force, and we -- we called it Bernie. And -- and we are --
we are re-enacting that system where we evaluate every contractor at
the end of their job performance, and we feed that into a database,
and then as future awards are made we go back and look at how
many Bernies we have on you, so to speak, and how much previous
Page 16
September 24, 2003
county work you've done, and we take that into account.
Now, that's in recommissioning, if you will, right now. We just
recommenced it in the last few months, and it's going to be a few
months down the road before we have enough data in there for it to
be of use to us, but that's in the works in terms of another added tool
to evaluate better performance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Fantastic.
MR. MUDD: Now, Commissioner, it's fantastic when you're--
when you're not getting a phone call from that vendor or that
contractor that's local that did a bad job and isn't going to get another
job in Collier County for the next three years, okay, in county
government because they got a bad rating and then it gets a little bit
-- now you -- why -- why are we resurrecting Bernie? Okay. Why
hasn't Bernie -- since we had a general officer retire that put it on
there and it was a great productivity thing, why did it fade away?
Because of that pressure. Okay. I'm going to tell you right now what
-- where it went and why I'm saying why don't we have a contractor
evaluation form that's active for our records because it got pretty
dicey with past commissions. Okay. And I can only speak of what I
hear from the staff because I wasn't here for that, but I just want to
make sure you understand this has ramifications to local business.
If they don't do a good job and they don't provide a quality
product for the taxpayer dollars that they signed up to do, they won't
get a good report card, and -- and when it comes time to bid on the
next project, if it's low or whatever, that evaluation will come into
play. So I just want to -- I just want to make sure it's two sides, and
we're trying to protect the taxpayers' dollars and be good stewards
thereof, and it's -- and-- and the either-- we'll have a protest or
appeals process for that person that gets a bad award to vent. I don't
know if we have to do some kind of thing -- and I need to talk to
Michael about it a little bit, but we'll have some appeals process that
they can go through so that's there so that it just isn't the staff said so
Page 17
September 24, 2003
so, therefore, it is. They'll be able to present their case and -- and --
and rebut it or whatever.
But I just want to make sure that the -- the -- the last iteration of
this evaluation went down in flames because there was some -- there
was some pressure applied, and -- and -- and people got real nervous
about giving a rating because -- for fear of losing their job and being
honest with it, and I'll just tell you from a staff perspective and what
I've got back from -- what I've got back from some project managers.
And I've told them in no uncertain terms would their job be in
jeopardy because of their evaluation on a contractor, and I've
reinforced that a couple of times.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So, in other words, the heat is on
to us?
MR. MUDD: Well -- well, it depends on how the rating comes
out, but -- but I will let you know that the first phone call they will
make is to the commissioner in their district or to all five
commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We're not beholding to local
business in Collier County. We're beholding to the taxpayers of
Collier County, and they entrusted us with their money, you know.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So I don't think anybody up here will
disagree, but I appreciate the heads-up -- MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- on this item. These other items,
because of lack of information, I don't know if this is a good change
or not or if it's a -- if it's a needed change or not, but I would like to
know in order for me to approve it if the county manager and the
county attorney can verify that this -- this is part of the scope of the
work and-- Mr. Pettit, and if somebody is responsible, either the
design engineer or the contractor in these cases, if they have any
responsibility in these change orders.
Page 18
September 24, 2003
MR. PETTIT: Commissioner Henning --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
MR. PETTIT: Mike Pettit, for the record. -- my question is
what you envision our role is in this process. I will tell you that it's
my understanding -- and Steve can correct me if I'm wrong -- that for
a number of years now -- when I first came here, I think we signed
off on all change orders. I think for a number of years we do not sign
off on change orders unless they exceed that 10 percent threshold, so
our office really isn't involved in the change order process often.
And, frankly, Steve, do we sign off on change orders above the
10 percent threshold in an ordinary basis?
MR. CARNELL: You do in some instances. It's basic -- it's
been historically brought to your office when there were legal
questions on the direct horizon, and I'm in -- been in discussion with
one of your staff members, Mike, about standardizing the process for
change order review, and I'm actually working that out right now as
we speak.
MR. PETTIT: Then if I understand what you're saying,
Chairman Henning, you would like our office when there is a change
order to have some review role to determine whether -- and I'll be
frank. This is one I encounter, and I don't pretend to be an engineer.
It seems to be an engineer view, and maybe Commissioner Halas
could speak to this or Mr. Mudd, but the difference between errors by
the eng -- by the consulting engineer or design professional of
omission and commission. And it seems to be that when there are
errors of omission that result in change orders we often do not look
back at the design professional.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well --
MR. PETTIT: And those -- those are just issues that I'm aware
of, and I -- I'm -- I just want to make sure what our off-- what you
would like our office's role to be.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That is what I'm asking. And maybe
Page 19
September 24, 2003
somebody in the county staff could see if these change orders are in
tune with the contracts. You know, I only mentioned the county
attorney's office because the information that I have here today, in
order to approve it, I need to trust, but in order to trust I need some
verification if I'm going to approve that. So, Steve -- MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- do you have somebody in your
office that can take a look at the contracts dealing with these change
orders and see if it's --
MR. CARNELL: Well, I can tell you we have--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. CARNELL: In each instance -- in each instance the
change is doing more of something that was already in there to
further enhance the project, so if you're talking about change in scope
-- I'm not really sure what I know that phrase means, and I work in
the contracting business every day. That phrase means different
things to different people.
In this case we're talking about an existing scope where more
was' needed for whatever reason, and -- and I'm generalizing, I'm
sorry, across all three of them when I say that. But, no, there was no
new scope being added, if that's what your question is, and we're
doing something--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MR. CARNELL: -- totally different that wasn't in there to
begin with, some sort of--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So that's a verification that I need on
that aspect so ...
MR. CARNELL: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: It -- it needs to be attached -- it needs to be
attached to -- to this particular dollar -- document with the
verifications on each item underneath, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
Page 20
September 24, 2003
MR. MUDD: And I think that would help a lot with -- with
some additional descriptions of what exactly the work was so that
you're just not getting a one liner and you get more expansive, and
we'll get that for you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good. And the only verification I
need now is is there anybody that -- that -- that we need to say, "Hey,
you played a role in this responsibility of why this change order
happened. You should have caught this during the design phase or
the construction phase or whatever"; that's all.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And -- and I will tell you that-- that I've
been involved since I've been here in -- in -- in two rather large
arbitrations; one with a cons -- the engineer-- both with engineering
firms, come to think about it. And one had to do with the north water
plant where we extracted some $90,000 of-- of errors from that
design firm and another on a road project with a local firm, and we
extracted some two hundred and fifty or two hundred and
seventy-five thousand dollars from -- from that particular firm
because of omissions in their design that they should have -- that
should have been there. Okay. And so -- MR. PETTIT: It was $900,000--
MR. MUDD: Nine hun-- nine hundred
MR. PETTIT: -- on the first one.
MR. MUDD: On the first one and two seventy-five on the
second. And so the first one took us five years. Okay. And legal
costs for the Tampa firm were about $300,000 thereabout.
MR. PETTIT: Yeah, I think our net was around $600,000.
MR. MUDD: Okay. So it isn't -- and, you know, that's just for
attorneys. I can't tell you how much staff time we put into that one,
but we go after them, especially when -- when it's big-dollar amounts
that you can -- that you could hook into it, but is -- it is expensive to
-- to go down subject-matter experts and -- and go through that whole
process in order to actually prove your case.
Page 21
September 24, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before I go to Commissioner Halas
-- well, even on these small ones, if we can verify it, we might
tighten down the screws on them. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think where we're going with
this is that all we need is just a little bit of added information, but I
don't think we want to be -- get bogged down with all the increases.
For ease of it, I think we just want to get a good feel that -- and an
idea of exactly what took place, but maybe in a paragraph or two, I
think, is what we're looking for.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm looking for a little bit more
information than that, Commissioner. So if I don't get the
information -- sufficient information I might pull it off the consent
agenda and say I don't feel comfortable approving it, or I'll just keep
on demanding, but I think we all should be looking at the same
material.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But, also, I think we also look at
the fact that we've got qualified people in the county here, and we
empower them to do their job, and I think they're doing that to the
utmost of their ability, and I think all we need to do is just make sure
that the information that's given to us is adequate and supports it, and
we don't spend a lot of time mulling over all these things, because I
think all that's going to do is just add more expense to the whole
project when you start requesting more and more information, and it
-- and if we don't trust these people then we should be down there
doing their job.
MR. CARNELL: Mr. Chairman, if I could, if we could maybe
to try to help you resolve this for the moment, if-- if your staff could
come back to you in a subsequent board meeting and give you a brief
overview of the whole picture of the process in terms of A to Z that
includes -- and we've hit on some of the components this morning,
Page 22
September 24, 2003
the trust and verification reporting, the Bernie system, and some
other things that are in progress as well, take you through that whole
thing and then tell you what is on the horizon still to come and
maybe -- and including things that we haven't done that we may not
necessarily even have the resources to do right now in terms of the
next level of contract administration, but something that's down the
road to be dealt with in the future. If we could do that and maybe at
the same time give you some specific suggestions from our
perspective of how we can enhance the report to go try to address
that particular concern that the chairman has, that may be a way to
continue focusing our discussion.
And we can come back as a staff a little better prepared to cover
all of the issues at that point and be happy to do that at the next board
meeting or whenever you so direct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I -- I think that we need to give the
county manager latitude on how it fits into our board meeting.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I think the next board meeting
would be a -- would be a good time in order to do that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Because I can-- I can see everyone has concerns
on this one, and we want to make sure that you understand what
we're trying to do to -- to clean up the system, to make sure that the
process is -- is well, that we're getting at those issues about
verifications of contracts and what's out there trying to put the
responsibility and the accountability on designers, construction firms,
our own project managers to make sure that -- that we are going to --
that we are being good stewards of taxpayer dollars.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And, no, I don't want the
county manage -- or county attorney involved in this. MR. PETTIT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It sounds like the purchasing
department can take a look at the contract. MR. PETTIT: I --
Page 23
September 24, 2003
yeah, I would think that that's the case, and if they have a question as
to accountability for the cause of change order I think they would
refer that to us for assistance at that point. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Can I ask you a question real quick, Steve?
MR. CARNELL: Sure.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question of Mr.
Camell?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
MR. MUDD: Steve, are -- these work orders or these
administrative changes, okay, can you -- can you verify for the board
that these were additions to those work orders and not within the --
the written piece of work, they were -- they were additional works
that we were --
MR. CARNELL: You mean we're not paying redundantly and
we're not paying twice?
MR. MUDD: We're not paying redundantly, and we're not
paying for something we already paid for the first time.
MR. CARNELL: Yes, that is part of our staff verification, and
that is the case. This is new work.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And part of that is -- is seeing
that a design engineer or contractor should have put that in the plans
or should have caught that when that -- MR. CARNELL: That's--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Then I feel comfortable with
that in trusting you in doing that, so I'm going to make a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
direction?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Any further discussion? Further
Seeing none, all in favor of the
Page 24
September 24, 2003
motion signify by saying "aye."
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
Aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. That
was Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Fiala that was the
second on the motion.
Item # 1 ON
APPROVE THE TRANSFER OF $75,000 FROM THE CURRENT
PLANNING SECTION FY03 BUDGET TO COMPREHENSIVE
PLANNING SECTION FY03 BUDGET TO RESTORE FUNDS
PREVIOUSLY TRANSFERRED TO FUND THE VANDERBILT
BEACH RT OVERLAY STUDY- APPROVED AND STAFF TO
FtRING lqACK POI.ICY ON A FIJTIIRE AGENDA.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item,
No. 10(m), which is Item 16(a)(1), and this was moved to the regular
agenda by Commissioner Halas. And 16(a)(1) reads, "Approve the
transfer of $75,000 from the current planning section of the FY '03
budget to the comprehensive planning section '03 budget to restore
funds previously transferred to fund the Vanderbilt Beach RT
overlay study."
And Mr. Schmitt will present.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, good morning. For the
record, Joe Schmitt, administrator, community development
environmental services division.
Before you this morning is a budget transfer, and in sum what
Page 25
September 24, 2003
this was is I had $200,000 budgeted for other contractual services. It
was in the beginning of last year's budget. That money was not
spent. This was money identified and earmarked if we were going to
go contract for the Vanderbilt Beach overlay study. That money, like
I said, was not spent, but we're moving $75,000 of that fund to pay
off basically requirements or at least that -- that billings that we
incurred from Carlton Fields in supporting many activities ongoing
within community development, specifically the ongoing litigation
with the -- that was involved with the challenge of the rural fringe,
development of the TDR program and the subsequent land
development regulations to support that, development of the eastern
lands and rural fringe LDR amendments, and the concurrency
amendments.
So these were all costs that have been incurred through use of
our -- our contract service through Carlton Fields, and that's what the
purpose of this budget amendment was for. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What was actually -- what did
your staff actually charge the Vanderbilt overlay study on the RT
overlay? Do you have the --
MR. SCHMITT: Well, that was all costs -- that was all in- --
in-house as far as time and expense. There was no -- there was no
outside contract for that service.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: I can give you the cost of-- basically in
manhours, if that's what you're looking for. I don't have that today,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What do you charge per manhour?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, basically, a rule of thumb -- when you
look at the fully burdened rate of an -- of an employee, let's say, a
mid- to upper-grade employee, and we're talking about the individual
-- individual that worked on this project. When you look at the fully
Page 26
September 24, 2003
burdened rate -- that's base salary plus -- plus benefits and
department and division overhead -- you're talking almost $100 an
hour.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So it -- I could tell you from a
standpoint -- probably a half a man year has gone into this overlay,
and that's really what you're talking about when you're -- regards to
this -- this -- this -- this product that we will have bound and we will
produce involved in the overlay, and that's the meetings, meetings
with the local citizens, and the resulting LDC overlay, which will be
brought before this board here in the third cycle of the LDC
amendments.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I'd like -- if you have a
chance, I'd like to have a breakdown of what the man -- about what
you figure the manhours were -- MR. SCHMITT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- that were spent on this project.
MR. SCHMITT: I can do that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that was funds basically that
wasn't charged to the community but was taken out of your operating
expenses.
MR. SCHMITT: And part of that -- some of that is -- was out
of the general fund, and some of that is -- was 113 money or
development services fees, but the preponderance really of that was
the -- out of the general fund out of my community redevelopment
section. But I will -- I will give you a breakdown of that if that's
what you're looking for.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, are we going
in the area that we should charge the -- the overlay committee for this
-- for the district for this?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think at the time that
Page 27
September 24, 2003
wasn't brought up, but I -- I think what we're doing is trying to get an
assessment of what the cost is to the county, and I think on future
billings we have to figure out how this is going to take place because
you're under a different operating system at the present time, isn't
that correct, compared to what we -- how you used to run your shop
there?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, in the -- in the end we'll
budget -- identify the manhours that are identified or are going to be
allocated towards certain projects. And we review that during the
budget cycle, but I don't track that hourly.
I'm doing that now because, frankly, that's the only way really
to do business to determine cost of doing business and what my costs
are, especially when -- when I'm dealing with fees and rates and
other type of things. That was never done in the division prior to my
arrival, and-- and certainly I have a staff to help me do that.
But -- but normally in the budget process, just as I identified this
year, support of Ave Maria University and-- and the eastern lands or
the -- the work that may be involved in other type of activity support,
as with Golden Gate, we identified $60,000. And off the top of my
head I believe that's correct --
MR. MUDD: That's right.
MR. SCHMITT: -- $60,000, which is approximately probably
about probably three-quarters of a man year which will be devoted to
that. So that's when you see that, but it's holistically done through
the budget process. It's not an hourly rate. I can go back and capture
-- at least attempt to capture the -- the manhours spent on this. I have
that through time tracking, at -- at least a fairly good assessment if
that's what you so wish, but it -- frankly, the -- it's like any other
project that we work on; that is, this board asks us to do, even when
you consider -- last night we looked at the Naples Park issue.
We talked about what we paid the contractor, but, of course,
there's a considerable amount of money that was involved in staff
Page 28
September 24, 2003
time as well.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Spent on --
MR. SCHMITT: That was probably another hundred to
hundred and fifty thousand dollars in staff time associated with that.
MR. MUDD: Joe, can I interject for a second?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Jim Mudd, for the record.
Commissioners, you came up with a new financial system called
SAP. That -- that new financial system that we put on board this --
this year gives us the ability to track time against projects. We never
had that before. If somebody submitted their time, they were
basically saying, "I worked this many hours. I came in Monday. I
worked here for eight," and that's what the timekeeper saw. Now we
can get into, "Yeah, I worked eight hours, but I worked two hours on
an overlay study. I worked two hours at a board meeting. I worked"
-- and you can keep track of all of those particular times and -- and
cost pieces.
So it's a valuable tool, and it's one of the reasons we switched,
because we wanted to get some more detailed information and some
more visibility on time spent for fees and other things because Joe
Schmitt's not the only department that charges peo -- people fee for
service. There's fees that go into parks. There's fees for-- for just
about everything we do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
MR. MUDD: And we're trying to tie those fees down to the
work that's exactly performed or the maintenance that you have on
the building, the heating, lights, whatever it takes to capture all of
those costs in order to get it~.
The other piece I would say to you is those studies in particular
are no longer being paid out of Joe's budget. Okay. We talked a
little bit about the -- the 1 13 fund, which is his permit funds, and a lot
of times that had a tendency to subsidize a lot of things that he did in
Page 29
September 24, 2003
his organization.
The fee structure you -- you approved yesterday minus the
copying piece that Joe still has to come back on the 14th with after
the attorney does his review on those particular items change that.
And if there is a study -- an area study, neighborhood study,
overlay, or whatever that's outside of his purview of reviewing
permits or reviewing plans or STPs or -- that gets charged to the
general fund, and that will be that part of his budget that's identified
in the general fund.
And he did that in this budget year very well, I might -- might
add. And one of your UFRs that you decided to do was a -- was a
study for-- in Commissioner Henning's district for $60,000, and so
that was added. It's that kind of thing that you get to see, and now
we can track the actual hours that an employee works on a particular
project, so we can really get that information you're looking for.
MR. SCHMITT: Some of the items that are mandated by the
state that are part of the comprehensive plan requirements are already
funded under Fund 111 and were -- and were identified there in the
budget process, and that's about -- probably half of that
comprehensive planning section is butted-- budgeted from the
general fund.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, we're going through a
very unpleasant and unfortunate process with Naples Park, and so
that no one feels that I'm discriminating against them or targeting a
particular district I'm going to ask these same questions of the East
Naples overlay and any other project we take on at the request of any
neighborhoods. And what I'd like to understand is that if we finish
this overlay do we have any assurance that the community would
even accept it? Are we again going out and developing something
that -- that we're likely to -- where we're likely to create a great deal
Page 30
September 24, 2003
of controversy about?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, I need to kind of delineate
between the two. Of course, Naples Park was a community
redevelopment plan. We'll go back 3 years -- 3 1/2 years.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, no. Don't go over that
history with me.
MR. SCHMITT: Right. But it was a result of the community
character plan. And -- and Naples Park was identified as part of that
process, and, of course, there were things associated with -- that
needed to be done to Naples Park as part of that community
character.
The Vanderbilt Beach overlay was strictly a zoning overlay to
identify what exists out there and to tighten the criteria associated
with zoning in the Vanderbilt Beach area.
Now, to answer your question specifically, will there be issues
that will be debated? Yes. In fact, one of them will be the built --
the building height issue in the RT district. And currently you can
build to 100 feet with a 25-foot request for a -- a variance, and we've
eliminated the variance, but we're still at the 100-foot height.
The residents were hoping more in the neighborhood of around,
if I recall, Commissioner Halas, 35 to 45 feet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Forty-five, I think, forty-eight
feet.
MR. SCHMITT: And so -- but there are buildings out there as
high as 180 feet, but this -- this was strictly an overlay to redefine
setbacks and building height and density for -- and nothing else.
We're not talking about community improvements. We're
talking here strictly overlay district in regards to the zoning criteria
and the rebuilding criteria, and that's -- that's what this overlay was
designed to do, basically, to study what currently exists, look at what
legal issues may be out there in regards to any type of challenge to
this.
Page 31
September 24, 2003
And this was a result of the moratorium, and the moratorium
that was placed on this area was a -- actually -- well, to use the word,
an interim development controls were implemented back in January
9, 2002, but--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I guess--
MR. MUDD: But to interrupt, Commissioner Coyle, you're
absolutely right, though. There's been a few people in that
neighborhood that's not going to be happy with this RT zone.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right.
MR. MUDD: And there's -- and there's going to be some
controversy. There -- there will -- there will no doubt be people on
the U.S. 41 overlay that's done that the -- the East Naples Civic
Association wanted to have and-- and is -- is championed in front of
this board. There's going to be people that are going to be affected
by that, and some will agree, and some will disagree.
And-- and I will tell you we probably need some guidance from
the board to tell us how we -- you want us to tackle additional studies
that -- that kind of self-generate from a community to make sure that
-- that we have that representative body, that 50 plus 1 that you need
to say, hey, they even want to do the study so that you don't get
where you were last night with people calling you names.
And -- and, you know, it was a pretty -- pretty well-publicized
event in newspapers and all over so -- for almost the three-year
period of time, and so I -- we're kind of at a loss. I mean, we -- we
go where you want us to go, but -- but -- but how do we -- how do we
capture the essence of the community in -- in order to do that,
especially when it's -- when the board is -- is -- is basically directing
-- and for good reason -- a study to try to gussy-up a neighborhood or
for whatever or get the proper zoning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I -- I think maybe that's --
that's the difference. They -- we do need some guidelines because
we have certain governmental obligations with respect to setbacks
Page 32
September 24, 2003
and building heights and densities -- MR. MUDD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- because those things do impact
public facilities' availability and requirements and things of that
nature. So I think there are certain governmental obligations where
we have to make decisions about those kinds of things, and we ought
to spend money to do that and staff time to do it.
There are other circumstances where a community wants to be
improved. They want to upgrade their community, and -- and I do
not see a direct correlation between that desire to upgrade and
beautify a community and our obligations with respect to health,
safety, and welfare.
And -- and perhaps the board needs to establish some kind of
guideline. When we go beyond the point of health, safety, and
welfare and the providing of the appropriate infrastructure and things
that imp -- impact the infrastructure, perhaps it should be the
community that funds those kinds of studies with our help and our
guidance, and that will keep us out of the kind of conflict that has
arisen from this -- this Naples Park study.
The -- the -- the fact of the matter is that almost everything that
happens that is good in our community happens because a small
group of people get together and bring it to our attention. And they
advocate for it. They try to build support. They give us ideas, and
we support them.
If-- if we refuse to do things like that and -- and instead make
all of our decisions based on referenda, we're -- we're going to be
totally ineffective in responding, so -- so we need to have some
delineation, and it needs to be clear to our communities what we will
and will not engage in without a so-called vote on -- on what the
community wants.
MR. MUDD: Just to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But I -- I think there's got to be
Page 33
September 24, 2003
community buy-in on any one of these proposals concerning
community character and -- and beautification of-- of a community,
and without that community buy-in I don't think we should get
involved in it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're absolutely right. You're
absolutely right in what you're stating, and we wouldn't have gotten
in this situation with the Naples Park if we had gotten all the parties
or -- that wanted to be role players in this and got them together at
the table--
MR. SCHMITT: I agree with you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- and then said, "Hey, is this what
you want?" And if they couldn't have come to a conclusion guess
what? We wouldn't have stepped in there. We wouldn't have -- we
wouldn't have went forth and put those funds there. We could have
put those funds in -- in Fiala -- in Commissioner Fiala's area -- MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, that--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- or whatever area that needed it.
MR. SCHMITT: Certainly the -- the folks were duly notified
when that study was started. I think there's probably some
misinformation because there was -- every -- even my staff
personally walked every street in that neighborhood and put flyers on
every door when we first started that pro -- the Naples Park project. I
mean, we -- we put flyers in the water bill, and we also walked that
neighborhood, every house, three thousand-- thirty-three --
thirty-three hundred lots, handed out flyers.
But just to make sure the -- you understand, from the Vanderbilt
Beach study there were two law -- there were two challenges out
there, and this -- that was a result of a different issue, some
rebuilding initiatives that were taking place in Vanderbilt Beach.
And, yes, it was the citizens that approached the board and petitioned
the board for the overlay, and then there was a board-- again, a
board-directed action that the staff initiated this overlay study, and
Page 34
September 24, 2003
that's basic -- getting back to what this was about, we did budget a
year ago money for that, but we -- we took it on in-house just
because of the -- frankly, all it was was an overlay issue and an
analysis of-- of what existed out there. And the citizens did hire
their own planner and their own attorney as well in this -- in this
case, the -- the residents of Vanderbilt Beach.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We're finished?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Beat this one up enough?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry. Can we at least get a --
get a -- get a consensus of the board to -- to --
MR. SCHMITT: I need to pay these bills.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- to give guidance -- to give
guidance to the -- the county staff to at least devise or recommend
some policy to us as to how we differentiate between what we as
government will fund and what we would expect a community to
fund so there's no misunderstanding about these issues?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In the future.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can you do that?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we have set the policy.
MR. SCHMITT: I think we do, and that's part of the budget
process.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MR. SCHMITT: We bring it up during the budget. You give us
direction as to what you want the staff to accomplish. We identify
those costs, and it's -- it's done through the annual budget. And I
believe we did that fairly well this year when, in fact, Commissioner
Henning said, "Okay. The next one we want to look at is -- is -- is
Golden Gate City," and we're looking at how we can best do that
with the budget provided.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. There -- there's a breakdown
Page 35
September 24, 2003
in communication here somewhere. If-- if-- if I sit here and make a
decision on a budget item, I am not making a decision about whether
or not the -- the -- the residents do or do not want this item, and I
don't want to get caught in the trap of having made a decision on a
budget item only to find out after having done that that the residents
don't want to do this.
Apparently we've -- the -- the board made a decision on the
budget item for Naples Park, but no -- no one actually raised that
issue, and -- and I want those issues raised before we start acting on
allocating money in a budget, and -- and it's important that we have a
very clear policy.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we will bring back a policy --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- okay, as strawman for the board, and we can do
it as -- we'll bring it on the regular agenda so we can present, and
then the discussion can ensue again, and you can say -- you can tell
us where you don't like it or where you'd like to put it. And this way
we get ourselves in the mode where we don't get ourselves in the
position that we were last night.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let me just say on -- on this
direction we were supposed to set aside $250,000 a year for
redevelopment areas. Naples Park was the first one, then we were
going to Golden Gate and then East Naples. I don't think it's fair to
Golden Gate or East Naples unless we still have that commitment,
but I guess the case in Golden Gate is we're not asking for 250,000.
It's far less than that, far, far less than that.
And, you know, the issue that we're looking out there is -- we're
not looking for trees and sidewalks and drainage and stuff like that.
It's just taking a -- a blighted area and changing the zoning over there
SO...
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I -- I'm not talking about
Page 36
September 24, 2003
backing out on commitments we've already made. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm -- I'm -- I'm concerned about
our decision-making process in the future.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we don't end up with backlash.
MR. MUDD: You could-- you could -- you could have a
policy that says you're trying to do the redevelopments and things
like that. Okay. The first thing I'm going to tell you about
redevelopments, okay, no matter what you do with redevelopments
it's going to cost money, okay, not -- not only for the study, but when
you finally get down to doing something it's going to cost dollars, so
you're going to try to leverage as much as you can from grants,
outside sources, federal, state, and any -- any ent -- private entity that
-- that would like to -- to donate those dollars that has grants set
aside, and then you're going to try to leverage how much you want to
take out of your ad valorem or whatever ways that you can do it.
But it's going to cost somebody money, and soon -- and sooner
or later it will probably cost somebody in that area some money,
especially if you're going to set up an MSTU. Things like on a
policy -- all civic associations in that entire area, and then you
itemize or -- and you lay them down, and each one -- each one of the
civic associations gives you the meeting of the minutes (sic) where
they talked about it and they -- and they gave you the thumbs up so
that you -- you know, you get away from the, "Well, who was that
that did that? They didn't represent me."
And we -- we had that fight between two associations; one at
that podium last night and another one sitting at that podium. And it
was quite clear, if you didn't pick that up. There was two
associations fighting with each other. One wanted it and one didn't.
Okay.
And -- and so having those associations delineate their support
for the particular study, talk with a flyer out to everybody, mailed at
Page 37
September 24, 2003
such and such a time, those kind of things in a policy don't
necessarily have to stagnate your initiatives but can reassure you for
historical purposes everybody and -- and the methodology that was
used to inform to get consensus among that -- those neighborhoods
so that you -- we don't get into the "Who shot John?" like we did last
night.
And I think you can do those kind of things and not get in with
sending -- sending votes out to everybody and get 50 plus 1. I think
you --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're right on the money,
Jim, and I -- and I'll tell you why. I -- I put a lot of respect in my
civic association and property owners' association. These people
here are the -- the -- the grassroots of that area, and if you get the
word out to them what you're contemplating and get a letter back
from them or the minutes back from them endorsing it and enough of
them, I think you're going to be able to get over a lot this -- problems
like they had in Naples Park, you know, where you had a number of
people that were very civically active who came up with a basically
good idea, and by the time the thing reached -- blossomed to the
point where it could be identified there was a sizeable investment put
into it, and it was well underway.
I don't think we -- we -- I think we could avoid that in the future
just by requiring just what Jim Mudd said. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: We'll come back with a strong -- we've beat this
one up enough.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Henning made a
Page 38
September 24, 2003
motion, seconded by Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
every one.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
saying "aye."
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
This one, I hope. I can't make
Any further discussion?
All in favor of the motion signify by
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries five-zero.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to public -- now, we
have two items that we still have to finish this evening. Okay. They
have to do with the South Golden Gate Estates.
It's Item 10(k) and 8(i), and we will do those tonight at 5 p.m.,
and that -- that's been advertised that way and so noted in the paper,
and the reason for it is to -- the -- the chairman wanted to make sure
that we had a complete venting and we gave people time in order to
-- to talk about that particular item.
Item # 11
DAVID ELLIS W/COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING INDUSTRY
CONCERNING PERMIT FEES AND THEIR USES. BUILDING
FI JNDS AND PI,ANNING FI JNDS ARE NOW SEPARATED.
And that brings us to public comments and general topics.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Miss Filson, do we have any public
Page 39
September 24, 2003
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have one speaker,
David Ellis.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Ellis.
MR. ELLIS: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm David Ellis
with the Collier Building Industry Association. I actually intended to
be here yesterday afternoon. Well, I was watching to see if I needed
to be here yesterday afternoon to speak on the changes to the permit
fees that you approved. You did them kind of quick. As I was
tracking, I kind of handicapped it to be this morning, so I apologize,
although-- although--
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I dontt think this is on. I'm sorry.
MR. ELLIS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why don't you start over, please.
MR. ELLIS: I can't remember what I said. Good morning. I'm
David Ellis with the Collier Building Industry Association, and I
intended to be here actually to speak on this yesterday but thought
the item was going to be on the agenda -- as a matter of fact, I
thought it was on the agenda today as I tracked on the television.
Y'all jumped ahead at the last minute and approved it, which is fine
because my comments really go to the spirit of what happened.
Yesterday when you approved those fees you approved a
number of things, and one of the things that's really been happening
is we've been taking a hard look at the 113 funds, the permit fees that
have come in, and how they're used.
The -- the -- we've always said a couple of things. We need the
appropriate money to do the appropriate service there just -- and just
like the impact fees, as you're doing now, they need regular analysis.
It's really important to what we're trying to do.
Our moniker with that, much like the impact fees, has always
been fair fees for reasonable service. We just want to make some --
sure that what's charged is fair and that there's a good service that
comes with what's paid for it. It seems reasonable for any consumer
Page 40
September 24, 2003
in Collier County.
There's a -- there's a legal bite that comes with this, and the --
the law is vague, and there's actually a movement around the state to
actually clarify this law, but the law says such fees shall be used
solely for the enforcement of the provisions of this part. That's the
legal -- the part that talks about building code fees.
So when you collect -- when someone pays for a building
permit, that money can only be used for essentially processing and
working on that building permit. Again, a fee for a service. If you
charge more for a fee than can be -- is necessary, it actually becomes
a tax and becomes illegal.
We looked into that last year, and it also -- what happens was
several things started churning through the system, several things that
threw up red flags that -- that county was building a new building
that's going to be paid for essentially through 113 funds or at the time
was, and it really wasn't serving a direct purpose all to 113, those
building permit fee funds.
There has been a dramatic increase in the external transfers from
that fund. A lot of what y'all were talking about just a moment ago
when you were talking about those funds were being used for a lot of
these studies that weren't directly related to the actual fee activities.
And there was also a couple of years back, as you know, a loss
of the interest. Those funds had built up to ten, eleven, twelve
million dollars at times, and there was interest that was being created
that was -- was -- was previously going into those funds then was
now being taken out and not returned to those funds.
And all of those things kind of threw up some flags that initiated
from CBIA's perspective an audit. We said, "Let's take a look at how
these funds are being used in relation to their -- their legality and
their purpose in the county."
Frankly, over time we knew that the funds were being mixed,
and that is the planning fees and the permit fees that were being used
Page 41
September 24, 2003
together. But, again, that -- it was passing that one big test: fair --
fair fees, reasonable service.
So for the most part those things weren't a big concern. What
happened was was we -- we started looking into it, and the clerk's
office actually got involved looking into it. And your staff has done
some very positive things. They really took and broke that budget
apart. The -- the answers Joe gave you to those questions, if you'd
have asked him a year ago, he couldn't give you those answers. He
didn't know where all the money went. He just kind of knew at the
end of the year there was some left or there wasn't some left, and that
was how we gauged how we were going to charge fees.
They've done an excellent job of breaking that down and truly
separating the funds now. Building permit fee funds are separated
from planning funds. We'd always mixed them before, and it always
just kind of worked out. They're now separating those funds and
analyzing them separately.
Then the good news is if you're a person who's going to pull a
building permit this year, the permit fees that you approved yesterday
have decreased. Joe tells me on average about 24 percent. The
unfortunate part, if you're going in for planning services, those fees
went up, some of them, quite dramatically really to unparalleled
heights around the state. If you look at what other municipalities
charge for similar actions, they're quite high.
Now, what's happened is -- if you wanted to kind of break it
down, we've really been talking about -- and I was just thinking
about this. We're really talking about how to put more money into
the bucket in that regard than actually how to fix the hole in the
bucket. You know, when we look at those fees, we ought to be
saying, "Boy, these fees are high. Wonder why? Is there -- is there a
process that needs repairing? Is there additional staffing or too much
staffing? What should we do?"
The good news is Joe's already in -- started -- Joe Schmitt has
Page 42
September 24, 2003
already started that process. He's pulled together a lot of the people
in his -- his staff team. He's pulled together outside forces that are
dealing with the process and are looking at proactive ways not to
dilute the effectiveness of the process but to make the process more
efficient and a better use of those permit fees, and I think that's a real
positive thing.
It's a very encouraging process as you'll hear more about it. The
reason I wanted to come today was just really to say -- continue to
reinforce Mr. Schmitt in his efforts to do those things. If we -- if-- if
we continue with those high fees without that analysis, without that
repair, I think we're doing a disservice to the -- to the people that
work and count on those permits in Collier County.
Please continue to encourage them to improve those processes
to work to proactive conclusions, and we'll continue to say all we
really want out of this are fair fees and reasonable service. Thank
you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. I have a question, Mr.
Ellis.
MR. ELLIS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: As you were looking at Fund 113
with the clerk of courts, looking at the contingency fund, do you
think that's an adequate amount, too much amount, or what?
MR. ELLIS: That's really a great question. There was a time
when we had ten, eleven, twelve million dollars in that account.
And, again, I'm saying twelve. It may have been more like ten or
eleven. But funds went way up, and the reason that they were there
is we had always said one day we may want to buy a computer
system, which they did last year. A new computer system is costing
one or two million dollars, and so we didn't have to raise the fees,
just jump -- to make that happen. Those things were there.
But there is no policy in place at this point -- and, Mr. Schmitt,
that's one of the things that when we did our initial audit the person
Page 43
September 24, 2003
who we had kind of take a look at -- I call it audit. It was really an
analysis. One of the questions they said is we really should pre -- go
-- work with the county to try to decide what a reasonable amount of
reserves are because, frankly, what happens is you get that much
money and people start going, "Hey, how can we use that money for
our purposes?"
And-- and, you know, again, a lot of that could lead to different
conjecture, but then that money starts getting used and those fund
transfers happen, those types of things, so we -- we patched part of
that process.
But I think it would be a very positive thing as a community and
maybe the development services advisory committee and the others
to determine what a reasonable reserve is, and once we hit that
amount then once again we look at could we actually operate at a
loss for a while in terms of processing fees because we don't need all
that money.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Schmitt.
MR. SCHMITT: The reserves will end up this year at about $6
million, but understand the reserves are really prepaid service. When
you get a building permit, you pay for plan review, which is your
review that you conform with all the necessary building codes, but
you're also paying for inspection services that will come after the
fact, so it's prepaid services.
For instance, if there was a complete shut-down tomorrow of
everything in Collier County as far as build -- issuing building
permits, I would probably still have a year to two years, maybe three
years, of inspections that I'd still have to perform, and that payroll is
-- is through -- paid through those reserve funds that are out of Fund
113.
What I've got to look at is what is an acceptable reserve to pay
for those prepaid services, and -- and that -- that's an issue I'll be
dealing with -- with -- with -- probably with Jim Mitchell and the
Page 44
September 24, 2003
folks over on his staff as well as Mike Smykowski on my staff-- or
on our staff as well looking at what is an acceptable reserve, because
if the reserves aren't there to pay for those prepaid services I have to
turn to the general fund to make payroll.
MR. ELLIS: And really to play into that, if there was a
downturn, say, in the building economy where there just wasn't
enough fee -- you know, the fees -- say it closed -- slowed down 50
percent; we had something like back maybe in the '80s -- and the fee
income slowed down tremendously, there's still process -- permits to
be processed and things.
MR. SCHMITT: Right.
MR. ELLIS: And we -- we agree with that, and -- but there
never has been, I think, a real significant analysis of-- with the
numbers that Joe is now creating, Mr. Schmitt and his folks. I think
we'll be able to come closer to those kind of numbers instead ofjust
going, "Well, there seems like a lot of money. That's good" to really
have a number that makes sense from a business perspective so,
again, that we aren't overcharging.
We don't want to undercharge. Again, we want to make sure
that the funds are there or we have to do something dramatic, but it
creates some -- I think just now that those numbers are coming
together it would be a very positive time to maybe look at that and
decide how far we need to go.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
after the meeting?
MR. SCHMITT: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Ellis.
MR. ELLIS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
attorney's office?
MR. PETTIT:
Can we talk about this, you and I,
I won't take up any more time.
Mr. Pettit, anything from the county
Nothing to report.
Page 45
September 24, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County manager?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, yes, I -- I -- on your change list
just -- just for the record to set the record straight, I noted an item
that was advertised but that wasn't on your agenda, and that was
ADA-2003 AR 4351, and that had to do with Mr. Anthony P. Pires,
Jr., Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, P.A., representing Keith and Sue
Orschell requesting an appeal on interpretation of AR 4119.
And I said it was at the petitioner's request. I would like to add
that it was also staff's request for that particular item. It was kind of
a mutual agreement. They're trying to get some more information
and another legal review. So I wanted to add that to make sure that it
just wasn't on the petitioner's. Staff was involved in that request to --
to -- to not have this item heard.
The next item is -- we have a request from a -- from a member
of the -- of the -- the coastal advisory committee and -- to -- to go out
and take a look at the -- the new policy and how it affects a particular
beach in Collier County and -- and to -- to get a -- a contractor
involved in figuring out the -- the financials of how much it can --
can be renourished and how much can't based on the new policy
because as it comes forward to the board, the new policy on the 14th
of October or thereabouts, they want to be able to use that particular
analysis that -- the reason I'm bringing it up in communication is I
don't want to get in violation of the board's intent back on 10 June
when you told us, "Don't spend TDC funds on anything beach
related" unless it had to do with a continuing project or to make sure
we sustained our permits.
And Mr. Delony talked about a particular item yesterday that
was met with that intent. If I'm going to use dollars now, TDC
dollars, to -- to employ this contractor that's on -- I call it a -- an
indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract -- it's a standing
contract, kind of a work-order thing -- that-- that -- that Steve
Carnell contract, I'm going to ask you today right now for permission
Page 46
September 24, 2003
to do that in order to do this investigation because it-- it is -- it is
different than what your intent was on 10 June that you gave to staff.
But understand what the intent is. It's -- it's for a -- it's for
Humiston & Moore with our staff to meet with some CAC members
and -- and local beach ownership to take a look at the cost of
renourishing a particular portion of beach and how much would fall
under the policy of being TDC funded and how much would have to
be private funded based on that policy, that new policy which you
haven't seen yet, that has been to the CAC and the TDC. And it's
working up to you at the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But there -- Commissioners, I can
tell you the staff is confused about the new policy and how -- how
they're going to manage that new poli -- policy, so staff's going to
make some recommendations on the new policy caucus as its own
policy, and the TDC -- I think they endorsed it totally.
You know, I'm concerned about somebody spending money to
prove a point that -- I'm not sure if it's the best interest of the public.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I -- I was just wondering as
we -- as we talk about this, what were the recommendations from the
CAC and the TDC? Did they feel that we should go forward with
this? We -- we usually weigh heavily on the recommendations from
those groups.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the policy -- the policy's coming
up to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. You --
you've got two advisory boards that have -- have moved the policy
forward based on a -- based on a draft that they had moved up. You
haven't seen it yet. You haven't approved it yet.
And -- and the key here is I -- I don't know how you want me to
handle this particular piece. Folks want to take a look and see the
physical impact on a particular beach of the new policy which you
haven't approved yet, and I -- I don't want to get counter to the
Page 47
September 24, 2003
board's direction, and I don't want to put staff in that mode, okay,
where they get their head knocked off and then -- and I want to bring
it to your attention ahead of time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My feeling is we shouldn't spend
the money on it right -- right now. Okay. If-- if-- if the CAC or the
TDC were to make a formal request that we -- we hire or spend some
TDC money hiring an engineer, then -- then I'd feel reasonably
comfortable, but -- but when you say that a member or a few
members of the CAC want us to get together and go down and take a
look at something to determine the costs for it, my feeling is that --
that if-- if someone wants to do that, whether it's a municipality or a
-- a homeowners' association, then it is their responsibility to pay the
expenses for developing the data necessary to make their own
argument.
If the CAC and the TDC want to do something and they make
such recommendations to us, then I would be happy to act upon
them, but -- but, otherwise, I -- I wouldn't act upon this particular
request, particularly since we don't have our policy established, and
the time to -- to present any information which would result in a
modification of the CAC's recommendation on policy would be at the
time when it becomes before this board and it can be done in the
public.
So I -- I would suggest that if anybody has a contrary opinion
about what the policy should be they should present it at that board in
public in an advertised meeting so we can make a proper -- proper
decision.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think he got direction.
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I-- I agree with
Commissioner Coyle. I --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yep.
Page 48
September 24, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Definitely.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The answer is no.
MR. MUDD: Thank you, sir. That's all I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, do you have
anything?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Nothing. I just want to say again
that I want to thank the support of the board last night as we moved
this Naples Park thing. Hopefully it'll end and the citizens will
determine their fate on what they want to do with that. Thank you
again.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have nothing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I -- I can't let this Naples
Park thing go. I'm going to try to get rid of it now. Commissioner
Hal -- Halas, I -- I think it was very, very unfair that people attacked
you last night with respect to that -- that study. You weren't even
here when it was approved. To hold you responsible for the lack of
understanding and the conflict that has occurred in that community, I
think, is irresponsible, and I hope very soon we can put this thing
behind us.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well said.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We are adjourned until five o'clock.
MR. MUDD: We will continue at five o'clock tonight.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We are in recess until five o'clock.
Page 49
September 24, 2003
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:27 a.m.
The meeting was reconvened at 5:02 P.M.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Board of Commissioners are back in
session. Would all rise. We'll do the pledge of allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #1 OK and Item #81
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
1NTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, SOUTH FLORIDA
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND COLLIER COUNTY
CONTINGENT ON THE BOARD'S APPROVAL OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION'S
PETITION TO VACATE CERTAIN RIGHTS OF WAY WITHIN
THE SOUTHERN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES AND ADJACENT
STATE-OWNED IJANDS- APPROVED;
RESOLUTION 2003-336 PETITION BY THE STATE OF
FLORIDA, BY AND THROUGH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, TO DISCLAIM,
RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND THE
PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN THE PLATTED ROAD RIGHTS OF
WAY IN THE SOUTHERN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES,
DEDICATED TO THE COUNTY BY THE PLATS OF GOLDEN
GATE ESTATES, UNITS 98, 98A, 99, 99A, 100, 100A, 101
THROUGH 113, l13A, 114, l14A, 118, 119, 121,123, 123A, 124,
127, 130, 131,134, 135, 136, 137, 140 THROUGH 167, 171 AND
172, (LOCATED IN TOWNSHIPS 50 AND 51 SOUTH, RANGES
Page 50
September 24, 2003
27 AND 28 EAST) AND TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND
VACATE A 1.12 MILE OF ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY KNOWN AS
MILLER BOULEVARD EXTENSION LOCATED IN SECTIONS
25 AND 36, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, AND TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THAT PORTION OF A
ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY KNOWN AS JANES SCENIC DRIVE
DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 76, PAGE 394,
LYING NORTHERLY OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH
150 FEET OF THE SOUTH 660 OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 52 SOUTH, RANGE 29
EAST- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Manager, two items left on
the agenda today?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. They are: Item 10(K). This item is to
be heard at 5:00 p.m., 9/24/03, which is this evening, and is a
companion to Item 8(I), and I'll read them both. But I'll do 10(K)
first.
And that's a proven agreement between the board of trustees of
the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, South Florida Water
Management District and Collier County, contingent on the Board's
approval of the Department of Environmental Protection's petition to
vacate certain rights-of-way within the South Golden Gate Estates
and adjacent state owned land.
And 8(I), this item is to be heard at 5:00 p.m., 9/24/03, and is a
companion to Item 10(K) which I just read.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petitioned by the
State of Florida, by and through the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, to disclaim, renounce and vacate the
county's and the public's interest in the platted road rights-of-way in
the South Golden Gate Estates, dedicated to the county by the plats
Page 51
September 24, 2003
of Golden Gate Estates, Units 98, 98A, 99, 99A, 100, 100A, 101
through 113, l13A, 114, l14A, 118, 119, 121,123, 123A, 124, 127,
130, 131,134, 135, 136, 137, 140 through 167, 171 and 172. Located
in Townships 50 and 51 south, Ranges 27 and 28 east. And to
disclaim, renounce and vacate a 1.12 mile of road right-of-way
known as Miller Boulevard Extension, located in Sections 25 and 36,
Township 51 south, Range 27 east. And disclaim, renounce and
vacate that portion of a road right-of-way known as Jane's Scenic
Drive, described in official Records Book 76, Page 394, lying
northerly of the south line of the north 150 feet of the south 660 of
the southwest quarter of Section 12, Township 52 south, Range 29
east.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Ask --
MR. PETTIT: Mr. Chairman, may I?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Pettit?
MR. PETTIT: Just for the record, the county attorney has
recommended that this hearing to vacate these roadways be treated as
a quasi-judicial proceeding. We don't necessarily agree that it is, but
in an abundance of caution, we're recommending the Board proceed
that way and that's why Mr. Mudd is asking you to treat it as such.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: At this time, I'll ask for any ex parte
communication on this item. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Let's see, I've talked to,
among many people, Sonya Dearwalker, Hank Graham, Pam
Mac'Kie, Clarence Tears, Chief Billy Cypress, Mayor Sammy
Hamilton, numerous individuals from the user groups. I've received
numerous phone calls and numerous e-mails, and it's in my file, if
anyone would like to see it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And also, we heard this at our last
meeting -- or June meeting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct, we have.
Page 52
September 24, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Since the June meeting I have
received one e-mail concerning this issue. There are several other
pieces of correspondence that have been sent to me in reference to it,
all in the public file.
And earlier today I talked with Representative Mike Davis
concerning ways in which we could assure compliance with the
agreement which has been proposed.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, since the June meeting, I have
also received some e-mails and some correspondence. And in this
packet I not only have the ones received before June but since then.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I think it was July.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, was it July?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: July meeting. Was it July 29th?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I think you're right. Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: My mistake, Commissioner.
All my correspondence are in this file. Besides the July 29th
meeting, I had extensive conversations with Representative Mike
Davis, Representative Dudley Goodlette and secretary of DEP, Mr.
Struhs. And that's it.
Commissioners, County Manager, we have a fire chief here who
has a commitment at 6:00, but thought it was important to -- for the
Board to take some consideration. I hope the Board would allow
Chief Don Peterson to speak at this time. Mr. Don Peterson?
MR. PETTIT: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Peterson should be sworn in
if this is to be taken as part of the public meeting.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: At this time, anybody wishing to
participate in the discussions this evening dealing with Southern
Golden Gate Estates, please rise, raise your right hand and the court
reporter will swear you in.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
Page 53
September 24, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Peterson?
CHIEF PETERSON: Thank you, Commissioners. I appreciate
your allowing us to speak early in the beginning here.
I've got Commissioner Matt Hudson with me also today, and we
will be brief. We know you have a lot of speakers with you.
I did provide you a letter. The short version -- if I may quickly
read through this for you, gives you the short version, and I'll touch
on a couple of things after that.
On September 15th, 2003, myself, Chief Wilson from Ochopee
and Chief Schank from East Naples Fire Control and Rescue District
met with staff from South Florida Water Management and Division
of Forestry at the Big Cypress Basin office to review access and
protection issues to the area south of 1-75 and north of U.S. 41,
known as Golden Gate south blocks.
Our concerns include trying to make sure we have 24 access to
the area on roads that would support us 12 months out of the year for
not only brush fires but also vehicle fires and rescue calls of all
types.
Additionally, we have asked for support in having the existing
gate at 1-75 and Everglades Boulevard moved to the southwest side.
It was my understanding from this meeting someone from one
of the state agencies would provide us a written response indicating
assurance that a resolution of our concerns would be included for this
meeting. As of 15:00 hours today, I'm not aware of any written
response from any state agency. Therefore, based on the lack of any
written response to support and document verbal commitments from
state agencies, I am not able to provide anyone written approval for
the total release of any rights of the Golden Gate Fire Control and
Rescue District, and would ask the Board of County Commissioners
to identify someone to work with us in the coming months to resolve
as many of the problems, including funding for next year and future
years for providing services to this area and other state owned
Page 54
September 24, 2003
property.
I've also attached a copy of a memo sent to Commissioner
Coletta detailing additional information discussed in our meeting.
And in general, what we attempted to identify, that the south
blocks is an area that not only has brush fire issues, but there are
medical issues from vehicle accidents, ATV issues. There are --
there's an area west of the south block area, west of Miller that's in a
un-block section, is not initially involved in this area that you're
dealing with tonight, but the reason it becomes an issue for us is
because access is gained through the south block area.
Now, there's maps indicating some of the roads, the asphalt
would be potentially removed, some would be taken to original grade
level and some would have a geo-matting type of material, which is a
material that would stabilize the base. And our concerns are, and I
believe you'll hear from a gentleman later, there's some folks around
124th and 126th just in the last month we've had to run medical calls
down there. They happen to be in the area that the asphalt is
intended to be removed and would be a stabilized base.
This particular time of the year, that area has a lot of water.
Sabal Palm has water in it. The Miller extension is unusable because
it has water.
About a week ago we had a call in the Lynch Boulevard area.
Primary access this time of the year is Everglades Boulevard from
1-75. It's a significant time delay. By removal of roads to a grade
level opens the opportunity for those to become underwater
potentially that may not be underwater.
We talked to the folks -- we were on a conference call with
some folks from Tallahassee, from my understanding, and they still
identify, and I don't think I'm saying anything nobody doesn't know
already, that they're not sure where the water is going to flow once
they start filling the canals in.
So that's, from an emergency services standpoint, why it was an
Page 55
September 24, 2003
issue with us to identify recreational or camping or west of Miller
Boulevard, there's folks that we need to get to. Unfortunately when
they call 9-1-1, regardless of who owns the property, Sheriff's
Department, EMS, fire, we all have to get to them somehow.
And one of the questions we had asked was, we need to know
up front, do we need to buy four-wheel ATV's or additional
equipment to get to some of these areas, because they could
potentially be underwater that currently are dry, and because nobody
knows just where that water's going to go.
There was some discussion of a road that would connect Tomato
Farm Road, I think was the right road?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
CHIEF PETERSON: To the -- would run up to a tram road and
then to possibly 118th southeast. There's some culverts that need to
be established along that road to make it usable and some additional
enhancements.
We had asked what the time frame was to install these, because
our issue certainly is we need to provide protection for the folks all
the time. And we haven't gotten anything back from anybody.
So again, I appreciate you taking us early and letting us share
with you that in particular, our case -- and Ochopee right now has
become two-agency, although East Naples is involved in it -- Jane's
Scenic Drive and Everglades Boulevard from 1-75 is logistically the
only way we can get in to those folks right now, or Medflight, if we
can fly in to them.
So it's a significant impact to us, with -- all reason that the
county would stop paying for protection for that area, now that all the
property owners are out of there, there's no tax dollars coming out of
there. And we had asked the state how they're going address that, the
concern being PILT money gets cut back each year at the state level.
And if they're funding through a PILT level or whatever level the
state cuts back funding the local level and the local folks, we still
Page 56
September 24, 2003
have to provide assistance to those people out there. We don't want
to get caught in a situation of declining to -- we can't do that.
Somebody calls, we've got to give assistance. And all we're trying to
do is work this out ahead of time so that everybody knows what's
going on and there's no surprises on anybody's part so we can
provide the protection to the people and we don't get caught.
Inevitably it's in the middle of the night or on a Saturday or Sunday
where we're trying to get the folks down there.
I'd be happy to answer any questions. At any time if there's
additional material that someone might need from the emergency
services, we'd be certainly be glad to provide anything that you need.
We can keep you up to date to the calls we're currently -- whatever
we can provide anybody, we're happy to do that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta,
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Chief Peterson, I just wanted to
comment that I admire the fact that you and your board have enough
foresight to look forward to these problems and try to get answers
now.
One of the questions I've got is who is telling you that Tomato
Farm Road going on to the tram road would be a usable deal? Who
was that person? Was it somebody from DOT?
CHIEF PETERSON: Well, it was Forestry and South Florida
Water Management. I didn't bring that name list up with me. It's
indicated on that map, that white broad area, they needed to confirm
yet whether the rights were in place to use that road yet. But the
speculation was that that could be tied in. However, there's a huge
berm that goes around Six L Farm. One of the culverts would have
to be in place to get through that bermed area and then down the road
there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Did they offer you a fallback
plan if this is not a doable deal?
Page 57
September 24, 2003
CHIEF PETERSON: There's really -- no, to answer your
question. If this didn't go through, the only other place is Everglades
Boulevard.
Now, there was, just as I come in, I believe Mr. Tears had
mentioned to us about the Collier Seminoles would provide access
numbers to the gate on their road. However, most of that is under
water right now, basically. So our -- usually our emergency issue is
medical type, vehicle accident type, something where we're normally
not sending a four-wheel drive vehicle or six-by-six type of vehicle.
So an engine, an ambulance normally would not currently be able to
get through these Collier Seminole access road or the tram road off
of Tomato Road.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Did they offer you anything in
lieu of taxes?
CHIEF PETERSON: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So there's not only an access
problem, there's a money problem too.
CHIEF PETERSON: Yes. What was talked -- I believe the
presumption that -- my presumption was that there would be --
because we've got mutual aid agreements with them now and we
provide that assistance agency to agency currently, but our issue was
that that -- the medical and other things goes beyond that. We're
looking more at a permanent solution. Whether that's through a
contract of some type or--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Possibly before you leave, the
Chair might allow Forestry to come up and allow for some sort of
exchange.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What would you like,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forestry to be able to come up
and to answer some questions with Chief Peterson still standing at
the podium.
Page 58
September 24, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, yeah, I think it's appropriate to
deal with this issue while the Chief is here. I don't know whether it
be South Florida Water Management District or Forestry.
MS. MAC'KIE: Good evening. Pam Mac'Kie from the South
Florida Water Management District.
I just wanted to pop up quickly to put back on the visualizer for
your review this map of the roads as they will exist, to show you how
I have personally resolved concerns about this issue. And then Hank
of course can tell you much more specifically.
Again, where the roads -- the way that it was decided which
roads would be at grade and which roads would be above grade is
where there are people who will need access to their homes, to their
homesteads, their residences, those are going to remain improved
above grade roads.
The reason it stops here is because from this point down there
are no other permanent residences. There are people who camp,
there are people who have -- just like I'm dealing with right now,
hunt camps in the very middle of the Everglades. And that's where
people go in airboats on the weekends, and they go out there and
they recreate and it's a wonderful, wonderful thing.
But you need to know that all of the permanent residences,
people who have homes, are going to have improved above grade
roads. It's only here where we are currently aware of a couple of
people who spend weekends here and have recently had an
emergency that required some services. But I do want you to draw
that distinction between people who choose to recreate out in the
woods and want to be out in the wilds. When I go out camping in the
woods, I assume it's going to take the ambulance longer to get there.
So I just want to make that point so that you know that the state has
not ignored the needs of homesteaded properties. And they have not
ignored the needs either of temporary users. And Hank can tell you
how that works.
Page 59
September 24, 2003
MR. GRAHAM: Hank Graham, Florida Division of Forestry.
Couple things. First off, there is going to be no change, even
though the two residents down there -- again, as Ms. Mac'Kie said,
they're not permanent residents in those areas. Access by the fire
department is not going to change one bit for several years. This is
the last phase in a multi-phased project. And that Miller Road is
going to stay as it is today. And someone tell me if I'm wrong. MS. MAC'KIE: No, you're right.
MR. GRAHAM: Until the last phase, which may be five to 10
years from now. So we don't have an immediate concern, immediate
issue with emergency access to those two residents.
As far as once the restoration project is complete, again, as we
indicated, that will remain -- the lower part of Miller Boulevard all
the way to 124th, 126th will remain at an at grade but stabilized road.
Which means our transports, fire department, four-wheel drive,
brush truck type vehicles, will be able to access those residents.
It will change slightly, yes. Water levels will be up slightly
higher than they are today, no doubt. Again, five, 10 years from
now. But currently the fire departments have a multitude of brush
trucks, they have access to all kinds of two trails and roads. And this
is going to be a stabilized -- not a two-trail but a stabilized at grade
road.
And no, a Class I engine will not be able to respond down there.
But a brush truck, four-wheel drive type vehicle will have absolutely
no problems getting to that area.
MS. MAC'KIE: Can a Class I make it today?
MR. GRAHAM: Don will have to answer that.
CHIEF PETERSON: I'm not sure. They were sharing there's at
least a foot or more of water in some of those places, so I would say
not today.
MS. MAC'KIE: Same situation.
MR. GRAHAM: As far as access for emergency response for
Page 60
September 24, 2003
recreators, when this project is completed, the restoration project is
completed and we're running this as a state forest with recreation
areas and such, those recreation areas that we establish will have
access. It's not going to be hard road above grade access to all the
recreation areas, but that's not unlike every state forest or park in the
country.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question on funding. Is there
something that the Forestry could do, since they're going to have
responsibility for the roads and everything, as far as in lieu of taxes,
to be able to help out our local fire department?
MR. GRAHAM: Well, that's something that we'll have to get
with the fire departments and come to some sort of agreement,
establish guidelines, response guidelines and come up with, you
know, some sort of agreement, whether it's, you know, funds in lieu
of taxes or in lieu of funds or whatever.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Tomato Road; are you familiar
with this proposal, sir? Mr. Graham?
MR. GRAHAM: Yes. In fact, Sonya and I were the ones that
brought this up at the meeting.
Now, the only catch to that -- this, according to Sonya and some
of our people who are more familiar with this than I am, this is a
pretty good road here. It's above grade. It may have a couple of bad
spots in it but this is a pretty good road. From what I understand, this
portion here, from 41 to state land is private road and I'm not sure if
we'll be able to secure a right-of-way for passage there or not. And
that's something we're going to have to work on.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Another question, too. If you
are successful in securing that right-of-way and if the road is
something that's passable and a fairly decent road, and it would have
to be to be able to take care of emergency vehicles, could we make
that part of the deal where that could also be an access road for
people to recreate off of?.
Page 61
September 24, 2003
MR. GRAHAM: At this point I don't know that I'm able to
commit to that. But that's something absolutely that would be open
for discussions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: At what point in time would
that come up for discussion?
MR. GRAHAM: I'm not sure. When we start developing our
management plan and see if this is a feasible option. Again, because
when we get more access like this, we've got to manage the access.
You know, we don't want to prohibit access but we have to manage
the use of the forest, and that is -- that is a possibility.
Now, it's one thing to get access across private land for
emergency vehicles and that sort of use, but for public access we'd
have to work towards that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And who would be doing the
negotiations for the right-of-way on Tomato Road? Would that be
Forestry or would that be --
MR. GRAHAM: I don't know that that would be Forestry,
that'd probably flow back to DEP, you know, who handles
acquisition issues.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to be kept informed on
the how the direction of that's all going.
MR. GRAHAM: Yeah, when we first started talking about this,
you know, for the record, we knew this was private. We weren't sure
if there was an established right-of-way in that section or not. So,
you know, that's something we need to work on.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't think we got all the
answers you wanted, Chief, but was there something that we should
ask now at this point in time while you're standing right there?
CHIEF PETERSON: I'm not sure what it would be that -- I did
want to follow up and share with you that we do identify, as far as
permanent homeowners down here, that they are disappearing and
will be gone in a very short time. But the -- and that's what I alluded
Page 62
September 24, 2003
to in the beginning, emergency services, we have to deal with the
non-homesteaded folks, as well as the homesteaded folks. So even
though there -- nobody per se lives here, there are -- well, in the case
of 124th, it's a nice trailer that's down there. So there is an exposure
problem there. And we know people are going to be there on a
regular basis, and they don't live there no, they live someplace else.
And that's where we got caught up.
And the reason this comes up is this whole area is part of the
area that is not in a fire district and Collier County had passed the
ordinance that said all property within the county boundaries will be
protected by somebody, fire service and rescue services. And that's
what's happened here, and that's why it's become an issue, that once
it leaves your hands it goes to the state. Currently it's identified how
-- whether they're from the East Coast, the north or whatever reason
they're down in the south blocks, East Naples, Ochopee and us are
providing services and EMS are providing services there. Once you
hand this area off, service still needs to be provided, and that's where
it comes into how do we do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Graham and Chief
Peterson, would you be so kind as to keep the Commission in the
loop as you go through your negotiations on this so that we know day
by day as this is progressing forward?
CHIEF PETERSON: Certainly.
MR. GRAHAM: Yeah, no problem.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I thank you very much for your
enduring the long time that I've had this mic. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: I think Chief Peterson asked for something a little
bit more concrete than that. He asked for -- in his letter, he wanted
the Board of County Commissioners to identify someone from the
state, that's what I'm assuming, to work with the fire districts in the
coming months to resolve as many of the problems, including
Page 63
September 24, 2003
funding for next year and future years, for providing services to this
area, and other state owned property. And I think, for the record, you
should find out who that person from the state is going to be so that --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We might be able to deal with it with
an agreement tonight, so, also. But yeah, we do need to take care of
this issue. It is a concern. That is one of the charges of the Board of
Commissioners, health, safety and welfare.
MR. GRAHAM: Yeah, I'd be the local contact--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle.
MR. GRAHAM: -- to get things going.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The state and government owns a
lot of property in Collier County. What statute establishes
responsibility for emergency and/or fire protection within those lands
owned by the state and federal government? MR. GRAHAM: I have no clue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Chief, are you aware of any?
CHIEF PETERSON: I can't give you the exact chapter at this
time, but this particular area falls under the county statute situation.
Once it transfers, I believe it's going to be a home statute for the State
of Florida that would be in the Division of Forestry's main articles,
because there are other state properties that are involved there. There
are state parks.
We could find out for you, because there are state parks that
have outside agencies that provide assistance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You see, that's the key to the
entire issue. The ownership of this property is essentially changing.
CHIEF PETERSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And whereas the county might
have had an obligation at one point in time to provide these services,
when the ownership and control transfers to someone else, it would
seem to me that the provisions that govern the delivery of fire and
emergency services in state and/or federal lands would prevail in this
Page 64
September 24, 2003
particular case. So it is important that the people get these services,
but I think it's an obligation of the state and/or federal government,
depending upon where we're talking. So we would like to get that
resolved, and if we could find out who's going to pick up
responsibility for funding and providing it, whether we need some
kind of inter-agency arrangement or agreement, but let's see if we
can't identify somebody for the chief to work these things out. Who
might that --
MR. GRAHAM: Again, for the record, Hank Graham, Division
of Forestry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Would Hank Graham
please stand up and raise his hand. Okay. There he is.
CHIEF PETERSON: If I might add, there's going to be a need
for somebody from the county to participate in that because of
Ochopee currently providing services in there that they come from
the southeast comer there. So I guess I didn't really write that right,
but I was intending more from the -- who from the county could
work with us, with the state, to resolve --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: He's standing right behind you.
CHIEF PETERSON: Thank you, Commissioners.
MR. GRAHAM: Again, this is not anything new. I think
currently Ochopee -- even though it's a county dependent department
-- provides services for Fakahatchee, and that's another state agency.
So we're not reinventing the wheel here, this is something that
already exists, it's just a matter of tweaking it and finding out, you
know, just how it works out for us.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I guess I've got to ask, is that in the
MSTU district for the protection? The Fakahatchee? I mean, you
can't charge the state taxes on it, right?
Chief, would you please come up here and tell us how that
works so we have a full understanding what we're doing?
CHIEF WILSON: We currently provide --
Page 65
September 24, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your name for the record?
CHIEF WILSON: Chief Paul Wilson, Ochopee Fire Control.
We currently provide the medical emergency services et cetera
for Fakahatchee. They usually maintain their own fire control stuff.
We do loan them a tanker here and there, and once in a while a brush
truck, but they pretty much take care of their own fire situation. But
we do do all the medical.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And how is that reimbursed?
Or is that just the expense of the taxpayers of Collier County?
CHIEF WILSON: Expense of the taxpayers.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Property taxes pay for the
services.
CHIEF WILSON: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We've got to talk about that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Well, we're going to have to
deal with that tonight, so if you can help us out, you know, we're
going to go through this process.
MS. MAC'KIE: With all due respect, we'll deal with it, but I
don't think you have people in the room who can commit -- who can
make an answer, can give you the solution tonight.
The answer is this is not the only state forest in the State of
Florida, and we'll deal with it as it has always been dealt with. And
if there is a taxing inequity then that will be dealt with, too. But
there aren't people in the -- I mean, if you're suggesting we hold up
the reservation -- I mean the road changes for resolution of this issue,
I don't think there are people in the room who could do that for you
tonight.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
MS. MAC'KIE: Oh, good.
nervous.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Well, I didn't say that.
Well, you said tonight; made me
Well, I hope that we can deal with
Page 66
September 24, 2003
this tonight, so -- if there's phone calls that we can make to try to
figure this out. Because right now it's provided by the property
owners. The MSTU is $90,000, and it's split by the fire districts to
provide that service. So what we're saying is that service is still
going to be provided, just the money's going to go away. That's all.
Why don't we deal with that and maybe we can deal with the
MOU item. You want to continue on?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I think you need to get the
petitioner to describe the agreement as it sits right now and at least
get that on the record and then go to public comment. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Mac'Kie?
MS. MAC'KIE: Thank you. Again, Pam Mac'Kie from South
Florida Water Management District. I'm the Deputy Executive
Director for Land and West Coast Resources, and I'm here actually as
an agent of the DEP, Division of State Lands, to negotiate this
agreement that we have already quite thoroughly discussed here in
the public record for the vacation of the roadways in the South
Estates.
I want to begin my comments tonight by asking you to
recognize the Big Cypress Basin Board. And I'd like to ask them to
stand. They, as I understand, have not registered to speak. But the
Big Cypress Basin Board members, if you would stand. Pat Carol,
Mary Ellen Hawkins, Alicia Abbot -- I'm sorry, I knew it was going
to happen to me -- John Boldt and Fred Thomas. These people really
should be recognized, they should have -- history will record that
they did what it took to accomplish a very, very important restoration
goal, the very first Everglades restoration project that will be
constructed. And it's a monumental and one of those things that
hopefully we'll all tell our grandkids about, because this is a very
wonderful thing that you're doing -- hopefully doing tonight.
The terms of the agreement have not changed since we were
here before. And since -- when I left, I understood that we had a 4-1
Page 67
September 24, 2003
vote to go forward with those terms. I don't plan to go back through
them tonight and tell you again what you have agreed to.
But I also want to commend you because you have faced a very
difficult challenge here with pros and cons on both sides. Absolutely
positives and negatives exist here and gratefully, I believe, have
determined that the positives outweigh the negatives. There are,
however, negatives. And the negatives I hope you're going to see as
the continuing challenges that we who work in government have to
continue to work at until we solve them.
And some of those are the issues that we've already discussed
here tonight. Some of them are some that I think you'll hear from the
public about their desire to use the land that they own. And they own
this land now and they will own these roads as soon as you have
vacated them. Because this will be public land.
And I hope that there can be some recognition of the diligence,
the commitment, the determination of the Forestry folks. They have
way worked beyond their requirements, above and beyond the call of
duty because of their commitment to public access of this property.
And I think that we can go forward knowing that clearly the
positives outweigh the negatives here. But the negatives do continue
to challenge us, but that we have a good team, good, committed,
dedicated public servants who' are going to work out the solutions,
and the negatives will just become the challenges.
So I am here just to ask you please to continue to support the
position that you've previously taken and ask you to approve the
vacation of the roads.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Question by Board members?
We had some -- we did have some changes to the agreement, I
thought, correct?
MS. MAC'KIE: Nothing is changed in the agreement except
what you asked -- you asked some details to be added, and those
were, as I understand it, done. And probably your attorney would be
Page 68
September 24, 2003
better qualified than I to walk you through what those are.
As we left the meeting before you gave us some instructions of
things that should be in the agreement and they are now in the
agreement. I wasn't counting that as a change. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Addition.
MS. MAC'KIE: An addition. Good point.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Chadwell?
MS. CHADWELL: Yes, for the record, Ellen Chadwell,
Assistant County Attorney.
The agreement that's attached to the agenda item as Exhibit C is
the agreement that has incorporated all of the state's changes. The
agreement that went before the governing board of the Water
Management District is the first agreement that's attached to your
agenda item. It did not include the state changes, but I don't believe,
and I think it's the district's position as well, that those changes didn't
affect the substance of the agreement.
What I heard -- there were a couple items that I did want to
reflect -- a couple of changes that I did want reflected on the
agreement. One was pertaining to the roadway map, and this was
something that was agreed upon at the last meeting. The word
"draft", it was my omission in not removing that language from
Exhibit C to the agreement. So I'd like to make it clear that the word
"draft" is going to be removed from that attachment to the agreement.
I'd also like to ask that the district, to the extent that they can,
and I -- to identify that last little nib on the primary road system,
because the map is silent. It could be any particular avenue. And I
think it's important that we know where that primary road system is
to terminate. I've been told it's 82nd Avenue, I've been told it's 78th
Avenue. I need someone to conclusively state for me --
MS. MAC'KIE: We can conclusively say on the record that it is
82nd.
MS. CHADWELL: 82nd. Okay.
Page 69
September 24, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the word "draft" is being
removed?
MS. MAC'KIE: And the "draft" word is gone.
MS. CHADWELL: And then I did hear Mr. Graham state that
those secondary dry season roads were going to remain at grade. The
agreement says at or below grade. So we'd like to remove that
language "or below" from paragraph 8(B). So that will be deleted.
The words "or below" will be deleted, and that paragraph will read
secondary dry season roads will be stabilized and maintained at grade
and will be open to the general public, weather conditions permitting,
as noticed by the Division of Forestry.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that agreed by the state?
MS. MAC'KIE: Yes, it is.
MS. CHADWELL: While I'm up here, I'd like to just also add,
because I know that we have a couple of residents that are very
concerned. The following sentence states, for those landowners of
improved property whose only access is via one of these secondary
dry season roads, they will be provided access 24 hours a day, seven
days a week.
That sentence seeks largely to address Ben Storr and Bernie
Nobel, who live on 124th Avenue and 126th Avenue. The intent of
that is if in fact their only legal access is via one of those secondary
roads or Miller Boulevard, beyond 82nd, that they will be provided
suitable access at all -- 24/seven. So I'd like to state that clarification
for the record. I know that Mr. Nobel will still have some comments
to make for you tonight.
MS. MAC'KIE: And I do not know that I can make that
commitment.
And I'd like to correct the 'record that this is not the residence,
this is a recreation area where they weekend. Those two structures
are not homes, they are not residences, they are recreational uses, and
that is how the distinction was made between where there is 24/seven
Page 70
September 24, 2003
access on improved roads and where there is not.
MS. CHADWELL: Well, the sentence --
MS. MAC'KIE: Is this a new sentence, Ellen?
MR. MUDD: No.
MS. CHADWELL: It's been in there since day one. It's the
second part of (B) and it just says, landowners of improved property
whose only access. So that's been there since day one.
MS. MAC'KIE: Then I apologize, they just were correcting me,
and it's absolutely -- the state agrees. MS. CHADWELL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, thank you very much. I
appreciate that.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, if I can interject real quick. The
last time we met on 29 July, there was some direction from the board
to the staff to get some things put in this agreement, okay, and most
-- and most of all of those particular items that you asked about had
to do with access. And I would like to, for the record, talk about
paragraph eight, because that talks about that access, so that we can
put it on the record. I mean, Mr. Jesse Hardy has called me several
times, worried about the fact that he won't be able to get to his
property. He wanted to make sure -- and I told him in a lot of detail
that that would be provided. So I'd like to talk at least a little bit
about paragraph eight and go down some of those things for the folks
out there so they know exactly what it is.
Paragraph eight, the state and district agree to maintain those
roadways contained within the project area and identified on Exhibit
C attached hereto in the following manner. And what you have on
the visualizer right now is Exhibit C.
Paragraph A, all primary all-weather roads represented by solid
lines on Exhibit C -- and those are the ones that are in red -- will be
maintained above grade and will be open to the traveling public 24
Page 71
September 24, 2003
hours a day, seven days a week.
Paragraph B, secondary dry season roads represented by dashed
lines on Exhibit C -- and those are in blue on your visualizer -- will
be sustained and maintained at grade and will be open to the general
public, weather conditions permitting, as noticed by the Division of
Forestry. For those land owners -- and that's what -- this is the
sentence that was in contention just a second or so ago. For those
landowners of improved property whose only access is via one of
these secondary dry season roads, they will be provided access 24
hours a day, seven days a week.
Number C, notwithstanding the foregoing, the District agrees
that safe vehicular access will be provided to all homeowners within
the project area at all times.
Then it goes on in paragraph D and talks about state and district
will provide access to Sprint and Florida Power & Light for those
roadways designated as primary all-weather roads, to all telephone
and electric facilities located within these rights-of-way. If
requested, state will provide a replacement easement to Sprint and
FP&L of sufficient dimension to provide for the continued
maintenance, repair and operation of these provisions -- of these
utilities, excuse me.
This provision will not be construed as requiring the granting of
easements or licenses for the expansion of such facilities. County
acknowledges that not all portions of Jane's Scenic Drive will revert
to state or district after county vacates Jane's Scenic Drive and that
state or district shall have no duty to perform under the provisions of
this paragraph, 8(D), as to those portions of the right-of-way not
under their ownership and control subsequent to the vacation of the
rights-of-way.
And this is important, because this has to do with what
Commissioner Coletta was talking about as far as the Picayune and
what kind of access is going to be provided. And they want to have
Page 72
September 24, 2003
specifics about how Division of Forestry would do that. And this is
paragraph nine.
District and/or state agree that the general public will be given
access for recreational uses on lands within the project area and in
the adjoining Picayune Forest. As part of this commitment, the
Picayune Strand State Forest reclamation -- excuse me, recreation
program will provide for dispersed recreational opportunities and
will recognize the following uses as compatible with resource
protection and passive recreation. Horseback riding, fishing, off road
bicycling, hiking, primitive camping, some types of hunting, wildlife
viewing and nature study.
The Division of Forestry is currently evaluating the potential of
an off-highway vehicle area and a gun range. All uses must be
consistent with the resource management plan and use best
management practices to protect the resources.
The Collier County Commissioner of the district in which
Picayune Strand State Forest is located will be requested to
participate as a member of the management plan advisory group.
This is consistent with Section 259.032 of the Florida Statutes.
Routes of all trails and facilities will be adjusted if parcels are not
required as anticipated or based on the areas affected by hydrological
restoration. Fees will be charged for some uses, and rules established
in accordance with 5 -- I think it's L -- is it I -- 5I-4 of the Florida
Administrative Code and policy 520 of the Forest Recreation
Management.
I just wanted to make sure -- and the other piece that the Board
had a problem with was emergency access over 1-75 with Everglades
Boulevard. And that's in paragraph 10.
State will provide Collier County with access to the gate south
of 1-75 at Everglades Boulevard, either by providing key access or by
establishing a protocol suitable to permit emergency access for
emergency medical and fire rescue and control personnel, equipment
Page 73
September 24, 2003
and vehicles from 1-75 to Everglades Boulevard.
And I think those three paragraphs hit everything that you told
us to change on the 29th of July and did include it.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Chadwell?
MS. CHADWELL: Yes, thank you. I've been told since this
agreement was drafted and circulated that the direction is incorrect,
the gate actually exists on the north side ofi-75. So we'd like to make
that change as well.
MS. MAC'KIE: We agree.
MS. CHADWELL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just want to make sure I
understood what they just said.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, they're -- on 1-75 at Everglades
Boulevard, there's a gate on the north side, northern Golden Gate
Estates side. And what -- the preferred access is on the south side.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you're going to move the gate
there instead? That's what the fire department was asking for, right?
MS. MAC'KIE: There's not -- the gate is not going to be
moved. Earlier the Commission asked us to ensure that there was
either a protocol that they could cut the lock or that they knew the
combination to go through the lock in the event of an emergency of
the gate where it is. The gate where it is, you will have that access as
you've requested. There's no plan for a new gate.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It looks like our emergency
management people are having a problem with that.
MR. TEARS: Clarence Tears, director of Big Cypress Basin,
South Florida Water Management District.
Basically it's the emergency access they have now, and all they
have to do by being on the north side of 1-75 is just go over the
bridge. It's the only access point at that location. And that's what's
Page 74
September 24, 2003
always been there and that's what everybody was requesting. It's just
in the agreement the south side -- we thought the gate was on the
south side, but after we looked, it's actually on the north side.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But they seemed to know it was on
the north side and what they're requesting is the south side. Is there a
reason from emergency management that they want it on the south
side? If this has something to do with health, safety and welfare, I
need to hear that.
CHIEF WILSON: Chief Paul Wilson, for the record. I'll speak
for Don Peterson.
The intent for moving the gate to the south side was that as
you're trying to enter or exit off of 1-75, you're in a blind spot coming
off the north side or coming on to traffic, or you have to cut all the
way across the interstate to get up onto that north side if you're
coming from the westbound side going east. If it was on the south
side, then they would come off the interstate and turn right off the
gate. You don't have to worry about a culvert that's immersed in
water that's not been tested for weight, okay. We don't want a truck
to drop into the canal, that type of thing. That's the concern of our --
MS. MAC'KIE: Commissioner, and we don't disagree with
what the Chief said. We would point out 1-75 has been there for 20
years, this is where it has been, this is the access that has existed.
And we would point out that this is a federal highway and there's not
anybody who's a party to this agreement who can make the federal
government put a gate anywhere. So we could all go try to do this
and work together to make this change for the good of the
community, but it is nothing that we had heard about before, and the
federal government's not a party to our agreement and we certainly
don't have the ability to commit a change on the federal highway
association -- administration. And it is what it has always been, and
will continue to be what it has always been.
CHIEF WILSON: Just for the record, the gate was put in during
Page 75
September 24, 2003
the Merritt fires when we had 43 departments responding from all
over the state. And that's how they gained the access. That gate was
put in in a couple of hours of decision making.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. And that was on the south
side.
MS. MAC'KIE: No.
CHIEF WILSON: On the north side.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: On the north side they put that in.
MS. MAC'KIE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When was that? I'm sorry.
CHIEF WILSON: I believe the Merritt fires were in 2000.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So "the always has been" is
only three years has been.
MS. MAC'KIE: So we are happy to look into it. If the federal
government has done this in the wrong place, we'll be happy to help
and support the fire districts in their attempt to move it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One last question. Who put in that
gate?
CHIEF WILSON: That I do not know. I was actually working
in the fire -- it just popped up, it was there. I mean, they dropped the
culvert in, backfilled it--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The federal government doesn't
work that quickly, so it would be interesting to see who put that in
there.
CHIEF WILSON: I really -- I can't answer that question. But it
was heavily used and it was a good move on their part.
The only thing we'd ask for about moving it to the south side
was a safety issue plus we didn't have to drive over a canal.
MR. TEARS: Commissioner, Clarence Tears for the record
again.
The gate wasn't put in the day we had a fire. Basically what
happened is they cut the fence and took care of the emergency, and
Page 76
September 24, 2003
then the gate was installed at a later date. We've had to do the same
thing at some of our structures. We actually had to gain access from
1-75. We took care of the emergency, and then we had to deal with
the issue afterwards. That's pretty much what happens in some of
those cases.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we would do the same in
case of another emergency?
MR. TEARS: Exactly, exactly. During an emergency, we need
to take care of the public and assets.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know how to drive a
bulldozer across one, if you need somebody to do that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why don't we amend the language
to say that the state will cooperate with the county in seeking federal
approval to put the gate where we need it? Would that be
appropriate?
MS. MAC'KIE: We could certainly inquire, and I have every
reason to think that they would be supportive of that.
I want you to know, though, that it's already been approved by
the Governor and cabinet. So I can't authorize a change in
agreement. The Governor and cabinet have already approved it.
I think it's reasonable to believe, though, Commissioner, that if
this is an issue that's in the best interest of the local community that
you're going to get support to seek a change if it's for the best. I
mean --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did the Governor and cabinet
approve it as it was written with the "south" on there?
CHIEF WILSON: That's correct, that's all we're asking them to
do, follow the agreement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see. Okay, so -- okay. I
mean, I'm just trying to get down to basics here. So if the
government has approved it with "south" written in here, then we
Page 77
September 24, 2003
don't really have a problem with it.
MS. MAC'KIE: Well, we do, because the agreement references
the existing gate. And the existing gate -- it's a scriveners error, it is
not on the south, it is on the north.
MS. CHADWELL: And the state would-- excuse me,
Commissioner, I didn't mean to interrupt. The state would have the
ability to execute the agreement with a minor change of that -- MS. MAC'KIE: Right.
MS. CHADWELL: -- nature, I do believe, without having to
take it back to the board of trustees.
MS. MAC'KIE: Right, exactly. Since what we're correcting is
a factual error in the agreement that says the gate's on the south when
in fact the gate is on the north, that is a scriveners error that allows --
that is allowed to be modified without going back to the Governor
and cabinet. If, however, you change the substance by adding an
additional provision, that would have to go back.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then how does that affect our
removal of the words "or below", referring to grade in paragraph
8(B)? We just talked about that change a few minutes ago. Now, we
either have agreed to that or we haven't agreed to it. What happened
here?
MS. CHADWELL: Well, I think we probably are going to have
to send it back. They have -- the certificate that's executed by the
secretary says that the board of trustees approved the agreement in
this -- in substantially the form that was presented to it. That's the
language. That gives them a little wiggle room to execute something
that doesn't change the substance of the agreement.
The below grade, they may consider that -- I would contact the
state's attorneys and say do you -- are you able to execute this
agreement with this change? If they don't feel that they are, if they
think it's a substantive change, then it would have to go back to the
Page 78
September 24, 2003
board of trustees. I tend to think it's a substantive change.
MS. MAC'KIE: If I may, unless maybe -- because this is very
good for us to clarify -- because I'm holding attachment nine, which I
believe to be the final version, and reading in the eighth paragraph, it
already says in 8(B) maintained at or below grade. So that being the
version that they've approved at the Governor and cabinet, it's not a
change.
MS. CHADWELL: Well, you just -- we just clarified that you
were going to maintain the roads at grade, and you agreed to remove
the "or below" language, so you might have to have the state approve
that as well.
MS. MAC'KIE: Well, I'm sorry that I misunderstood you then,
because I cannot agree to modify the agreement. I thought you were
asking me to confirm that the language in the agreement is exactly -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Mac'Kie, you did. I mean, you
said we could remove below grade.
MS. MAC'KIE: Well, I'm sorry, but I misunderstood the
question. Because I certainly do not have the authority to change the
Governor's approval of the agreement and the cabinet's approval of
the agreement. I thought that you were reading to me and I was
following along. So that's a mistake that I made and I'm glad I got to
correct the record before you voted, because I do not have that
authority.
MS. CHADWELL: Well, we're not asking you to commit the
state to that change. I understand that you can't speak for the
Department of Environmental Protection if they consider that change
substantive. But I did understand you to speak for the district and
that was to say after conferring with Mr. Graham there that they were
going to be stabilized and maintained at grade, which is -- we would
like the agreement then to reflect that, if that's going to be the case.
MS. MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, but that is a misunderstanding. I
misunderstood your question, and I'm glad that I have now the
Page 79
September 24, 2003
opportunity to clarify it. That is -- unless Hank wants to correct me.
I can't make that commitment on his behalf either.
Do you understand what they're asking?
MR. GRAHAM: Yeah, I think so.
Hank Graham, Division of Forestry.
I had some discussion with personnel from the state office,
Division of Forestry, and it was my understanding we originally had
recommended "or below" taken out. And DEP, I believe, had some
concern with that because there are some roads out there that are
currently below grade. And this language, if we take out or omit "or
below", would require us to bring those roads back up to grade.
And again, what we don't want to do is change the grade of
some of these roads, bring them up when they're already below
grade. And that was some of the discussion we had.
MS. CHADWELL: So the purpose then of that is to really
maintain if they're at grade currently, stay at grade, if they're below
grade currently, they'll be --
MR. GRAHAM: Correct.
MS. CHADWELL: -- maintained, stabilized below grade.
MR. GRAHAM: Correct.
MS. CHADWELL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I could, how do we establish
that as part of a legally enforceable record? Is this testimony
sufficient to do that?
MS. CHADWELL: Yes. They've clarified their intent and our
understanding of that provision, and I'm satisfied that -- I mean, the
question is I guess someone needs to run out there and determine
what's below grade now and what's at grade so that we can make sure
that those roads are maintained at that current condition.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are you going to have that done
by next weekend?
MS. CHADWELL: I'm sure we have plenty of able bodies
Page 80
September 24, 2003
around that can do that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'd like to go back to section 10. I
don't see where it says existing gate. If you could point that out to
me.
MS. MAC'KIE: Are you asking me?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I mean, you said the existing
-- you referred it to existing gate. That's what the MOU says. I don't
see existing -- the word existing here.
MS. MAC'KIE: Where?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Page 5 of 7.
MS. MAC'KIE: Page 5 of 7, paragraph 10. State will provide
Collier County with access to the gate. To the gate, the gate south of
1-75. Not a future gate, not a gate to be constructed, the gate south of
1-75.
There isn't currently a gate south ofi-75, Commissioner. So
what would be the gate south of 1-75 to which the agreement refers?
There isn't one.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Maybe if the state puts one in there,
it would be the --
MS. MAC'KIE: The state doesn't have the authority, it's a
federal highway.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, any other things that we need
to talk about in this agreement? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Time to call public speakers.
Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir, we have 15 public speakers. The first
one is Jim Kalvin, he will be followed by Cindy Kemp.
MR. KALVIN: Thank you. For the record, my name is Jim
Kalvin. I'm a recreational user of this area and I have been since
1966.
Most of you all know that I'm involved in resource management
Page 81
September 24, 2003
issues throughout the state, most significantly with respect to
waterways management, because I'm also a waterway resource user
and I make my living on the waters here in Collier County.
Going through the maze of government roadblocks is getting
tougher and tougher every single day. I've tried to participate
proactively, as most of you all know. I put my money where my
mouth is with time off work, time away from my family, attempts to
work with agency staff and elected representatives.
I've spent quite a bit of time over the last three weeks talking
with Representative Davis. A group of resource users got together
and we decided that we would try to put forth a plan that we could
support as far as working with the government, with the state, with
the DOF on a use plan that would allow responsible resource users
ATV access, that would allow traditional uses to continue in the
Picayune Strand.
Representative Davis liked what we came up with. We backed
a user fee, we backed a sticker that you would put on whatever
vehicle was going to be allowed in the park. We talked about
teaming up, partnering with the DOF to help with exotic eradication,
you know, bird dogging potential problems, helping maintain the
property that now belongs to the people.
Representative Davis brought this to Mr. Graham, I believe, and
they talked at length about it and there was to be a meeting this
afternoon, but I never was called with the confirmation, so I guess
that didn't happen.
What representative Davis was ultimately told was, well,
Division of Forestry really doesn't have control over this, DEP has
the final say on a use plan.
Is anybody from DEP in the room? Do we have anybody here
from the Department of Environmental Protection? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pam Mac'Kie.
MR. KALVIN: And my question would be, were any of these
Page 82
September 24, 2003
issues discussed with the Department of Environmental Protection?
MS. MAC'KIE: I have discussed those at Representative Davis'
request. I don't work for DEP. I am here as the agent of the Division
of State Lands -- Al, I don't work for DEP.
MR. KALVIN: Well, that was my question if we had any --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Starnes does, correct?
MS. MAC'KIE: No, she works for South Florida Management
District.
And I'm going to use the opportunity to be back at the
microphone to remind all of us where we are tonight. We are at a
choice of the state condemning out roads or we get something instead
of nothing. I want you to know that I question sometimes my
brilliance at inserting myself in this process in an attempt to avoid the
county being in a lawsuit with the Governor and cabinet. But I will
remind you that there is already condemnation authorized and
condemnation hearings for other properties scheduled in the next
couple of weeks. So let's please keep in mind that this isn't, you
know, where we get to do everything the way we want it. This is
where we're trying to make the very, very best of the situation that
we have. And we're working very hard to do that. But DEP's not
here because they don't have to be here. They have condemnation
authority.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The carrot and the stick; is that
what we're hearing?
MS. MAC'KIE: I'm glad to be the carrot.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I don't appreciate the
stick, to be honest with you.
MS. MAC'KIE: But it's a reality.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What is your understanding about
the talks about the existing recreational use down there and the
access that Mr. Kalvin has alluded to?
MS. MAC'KIE: As I understood, there were questions about
Page 83
September 24, 2003
ability to use the existing Picayune. Am I right about that? MR. KALVIN: Correct.
MS. MAC'KIE: And that there is a process to go through and
there isn't something that could be -- it isn't something that could be
addressed quickly enough to be answered, tonight.
I heard from very high up in agriculture, which supervises
Forestry, and the Secretary of Agriculture has made it -- of DCAS,
Department of Consumer and Agriculture Services, has made it clear
on the record many times how supportive he is of public access to
public lands, and he has instructed his staff and they are diligently
working toward permitting something for the rational, reasonable,
responsible users of property, such as represented here, but it isn't
something to be resolved in time to be tied to the Southern Golden
Gate issue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did Mr. Bronson bring that up at the
BOT meeting last week?
MS. MAC'KIE: There was no discussion at all at the BOT.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Kalvin, I'm sorry.
MR. KALVIN: That's okay, my question was answered. And
DEP doesn't feel they have to be here, they can do what they want
anyways.
And I'm dealing with people all over the state who have lost
businesses, who have lost homes, who have lost livelihoods and,
DEP still doesn't need to come to their meetings. And when the DEP
is caught, and the state says -- and I have to tell you that Governor
Bush is very responsive to resource users, and he would probably be
willing to take a change to the cabinet if it came from you all. I've
worked with him extensively over the last three years and we've
gotten very favorable responses. He's even gone to Washington D.C.
to lobby on behalf of water access for us, and is still doing that at this
moment.
When DEP can't get it done, they go to the U.S. Fish and
Page 84
September 24, 2003
Wildlife Service and they hide behind the myriad of endangered
species that we have. And nobody -- none of the responsible
resource users want to harm an endangered species. But that's the
other club. That as soon as we find a way to handle the club that Ms.
Mac'Kie just talked about, there's the club of the Endangered Species
Act.
And folks, all we're asking is, we played our hand. It's up to
you. Term limits in Tallahassee have basically neutered our elected
representatives and the state is being run by agency staff. We would
like the state to be run by you folks.
And with that I'll close and thank you for your time, both in this
meeting and outside, and I look forward to working with you in the
future.
MS. MAC'KIE: And please, while you're still there, may I say
if I left a misimpression that DEP doesn't care, that isn't what I
intended to convey. What I intended to convey is that DEP has a
process and they could not respond quickly enough to resolve the
issue to tie it to tonight's hearing.
MR. KALVIN: With all due respect, on some of the water
access issues, specifically the springs initiative, legislatively we
defeated three of their attempts to close all of the springs areas in
Florida to power boats, and all they did was refile it and file it
through a different department within the DEP, so they are actually
very active in trying to close public lands, public waters. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Cindy Kemp. She will be
followed by Brian McMahon.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I would also remind you that Ms.
Kemp wanted to continue her petition today. She physically
petitioned the Board of County Commissioners, and I would ask if
she needs more than five minutes that she be granted.
MS. KEMP: Thank you. Cindy Kemp. And first of all, I've
been out to Helen and Bernie's place, and it's a home. And it's a very
Page 85
September 24, 2003
environmentally prepared home. And it's a lot of work. And you
should all just go out there and see what they've done. They use
solar energy, they built their own well. They do it by hand. It's a
home.
Secondly, Jesse Hardy. Jesse's a Navy Seal, and we're going to
have the U.S. Navy backing up Jesse. I've been talking to a few
people there, too.
I'm from Maryland, and since Hurricane Isabelle has been going
on, I've been watching the news rather closely, because my family's
up there. And it's always the shots of devastated people crying and
upset when they see their homes destroyed and taken from them.
And that's done by Mother Nature. This is being done by people. It
doesn't make sense. It's self-imposed.
Look around here tonight. How many empty chairs are there?
You know the energy and the spirit that has been here over this issue.
Where are all these people now? They're frustrated. They don't want
to even come here anymore. They just can't stand it. They feel
ignored, they feel frustrated.
We gave a demonstration, you know, a week or two ago,
Commissioner Coletta came out, thank you. They're basically
standing you up now, the way you stood them up. They feel terrible.
And so that's why I feel like this is almost like a funeral tonight.
I feel like the only way that we get listened to is if it's behind a
courtroom door. And so that's why I have filed the notice for refusal
to consent relinquishing vested easements. And I would like to read
that.
It says: To the Collier County Commissioners: The peaceful
people living in Collier County in peace and harmony hereby give
notice to the County Commissioners, the South Florida Water
Management District, Big Cypress Basin and Florida cabinet that
your plans of acquiring certain lands or right-of-ways of roads
located in Collier County in an area known as the Southern Golden
Page 86
September 24, 2003
Gate Estates are not wanted or needed and were not requested by the
people. These proposals will damage us monetarily and will disturb
our peaceful existence under local law.
We, the undersigned, refuse to relinquish or vested prior existent
easements rights to our access roads, indicated in red on the attached
map. The easements established prior to 1976 are also RS 2477,
right-of-way protected by the government of the United States of
America and cannot be restricted or closed without consent of the
people who use them. Adams versus the U.S. and Sierra Club versus
Hodell, 1988.
This plan cannot be imposed on peaceful people without their
consent. And by this notice our refusal to consent to the proposal is
hereby established for all to see and witness.
Therefore, we who have witnessed in assembly below remain in
full compliance with applicable local law and in peaceful harmony
with God's law and man's law, witness our hand and seal this 15th
day of the eighth month of the year of our Lord Jesus Christ, 2003.
Failure to respond within 10 days is prima facie evidence of your
agreement. I filed this with the county clerk of courts.
This was a document -- a notice. This was not a petition.
According to Black's law dictionary, a notice is a legal notification,
while a petition is a request. We are not requesting anything. This is
a notice, the people are not consenting.
I can only presume that since the Commissioners have failed to
answer me, that they agree with the notice. And please explain how
the Commission plans to legally give away another party's easements
and right-of-ways without their consent.
This notice is now closer to suit and is being reviewed by
several legal firms, Mountain States Legal Foundation, Paragon
Foundation, Pacific Legal Foundation and, furthermore, the Supreme
Court says that under the constitution there is political accountability.
Environmental groups and the liberals understand the ramifications
Page 87
September 24, 2003
of this.
If a class of citizens -- and, you know, I don't like doing this. If
a class of citizens has their property taken or due process denied,
there's legal cause for action. The 14th Amendment guarantees due
process and equal application of the law. If a city, county or state
official enters into an agreement without the citizens' permission and
property rights are harmed or by that the official may become liable
for property takings and for denial of due process and equal
application of the law.
Therefore, with the exception of Commissioner Coletta, who did
not vote for the right-of-way to be given away, you all could be
personally liable for taking the people's rights without their consent,
since you have taken an oath to uphold the constitution.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just wanted to say, we got
this last night too from the Naples Park people. They accused us of a
lot of things. If you think we can stop this process, you're wrong.
The state says they want it and they're going to take it. Whether it be
peacefully or whether it be by eminent domain. This is what the
state is doing, and they've got money from the federal government to
do it. Do you think this little Commissioner can stop it? Guaranteed,
we cannot.
MS. KEMP: Well, there are laws, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, yes, but we have to decide
whether we want to work with the state to make this a better product,
like trying to work with these gates and so forth, or whether we want
to -- and then to handle some of our future flooding situations, or
whether we want to stand firm but then get mowed over anyway.
We're going to lose it one way or another.
MS. KEMP: It doesn't have to be that way. There's a state law
-- a federal law, 2477, the right-of-way to the roads. And, you know,
Pam Mac'Kie says there's good things and bad things about this. I
Page 88
September 24, 2003
don't think there's ever anything good when you take away rights.
That's what's happening to this country, rights are being taken away.
And --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we're not taking your roads.
The roads are right here. I mean, they're up there on the wall, so that
everybody that lives along there can get access to their property. It's
not -- I'm having a little bit of a confusion here, because the roads are
still there. And they're going to be maintained. And that's what's in
the agreement. It's in the written agreement. And you're saying
they're going to take away your roads, but you must live on one of
those roads that there are still going to be maintained. I'm not --
anyway I just wanted to state that.
MS. KEMP: I guarantee you, in a few years, nobody's going to
be allowed back there. And you're going to see more and more
people not allowed to go on land that -- here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm a little curious. I remember
when you sent this out, I referred it to the county attorney's office for
appropriate action. I'm not too sure what happened at that point in
time. I mean, I was incapable, not being an attorney, to address it
directly to you, so I sent it on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I did the same thing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Was there any kind of reply?
Is this valid in any way? Is this something that should be of concern
to the county attorney's office?
MR. PETTIT: Commissioner Coletta, Mike Pettit for the
record. Mr. Weigel responded to Ms. Kemp in a letter dated-- my
date is August 26th, 2003. I don't believe we received it in our
office, her letter, until August 22, 2003, at least based on what I'm
reading here. And Mr. Weigel advised her at that time that the Board
individually can't take any action to consent, receive notice or
otherwise as it acts as a Board. And we then -- he also advised her of
Page 89
September 24, 2003
the petition process that she's availed herself of here tonight. So we
did respond to the petition.
With respect to the question about the law that she has referred
to, I'm going to ask Ms. Chadwell to address that.
MS. KEMP: I'd like to make a comment, too, though. It is not
a petition, it is a notice. And that's a difference.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm not an attorney, I'd like to
hear from Ms. Chadwell to find out exactly what the legal
significance of this is.
MS. CHADWELL: I did look into the statute that she's
referring to. It's -- RS stands for revised statute. It's a law that was
repealed back in the Seventies. It was a law that was enacted many,
many decades ago that basically granted right-of-ways to persons
constructing the highway over public lands that were not reserved for
public uses.
I did try to contact Ms. Kemp, and she didn't return my call, so
I'm not sure the extent of where she's coming from on this, except my
reading of those cases doesn't support what she's saying.
And my understanding is -- I certainly know as to these platted
roadways that those were privately owned and built by the developer
of that subdivision. So I don't see how the law would apply to that.
Those weren't federal or state lands at the time those roads were
constructed.
If she's got some other basis for applying those case laws and
applying the statute. And even though it was repealed, there was a
codification of the law that said any rights -- any rights-of-way that
were granted by virtue of construction of those roads as of the time
that law was repealed, that those would be respected. So I don't want
you to think that it was repealed, it means it retroactively affected
everything. If in fact the road was constructed on federal lands or
public lands, they would be assumed to have that grant of
right-of-way under that old law. But I haven't found any basis for
Page 90
September 24, 2003
application of that. So that's my position.
Can I answer any more questions on that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Brian McMahon. He will be
followed by Sari McMahon.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You can give those to Ms. Filson.
MR. McMAHON: My name is Brian McMahon. I'm with the
Florida Outdoor Alliance, and I'm here just to kind of plead one more
time to give -- postpone signing this memorandum.
There's a lot of gray areas in the memorandum, you're still going
through it, whether the roads are going to be above grade, below
grade, whether we're going to allow the fire department the north side
of the road, the south side of the road. The recreation plan is vague.
There really is none. They talk about allowing, well, maybe we'll let
you fish, maybe we'll let you hike, but there is no definitive plan. As
someone who's recreated in that area for many years, I'd like to see a
plan before we give it away.
There's the threat of eminent domain, it seems to come out quite
a bit. I don't really think that Governor Jeb Bush really wants to go
to eminent domain any more than Collier County does. It's an
expensive venture for them. They have to pay legal fees, consulting
fees, and it will delay the project for many years to come.
Please, get all the details hammered out. I don't think another six
weeks or six months that he's going to really want to go to court
against the people in Collier County.
Now, it seems to me that they have forgotten that we likewise
are state residents, and the seeming -- this constant threat of eminent
domain, it just seems rather strange when we also are Florida
residents.
Southwest Florida Water Management is, you know, spending
Page 91
September 24, 2003
millions of dollars on this project. I would really like to see them
spend more money to fix the current water restrictions that they're
pushing for year round. But they are not allowing us to use the water
in 50 square miles. You know, they have a substantial piece of the
property tax in this county. Any time you get your tax bill, you'll see
it. I always thought Water Management District's primary mission
was to make sure that the people had enough water to drink and that
the water was drained when it rained too hard. This project seems a
little bit out of the realm of what the scope of what they used to --
supposed to be doing, and I would really like to see -- come back and
consider putting water wells down there as a county resident. It might
not be important right now, but when my son who's sitting back there
is my age, that water may be very important. And I'd sure hate to
have him have to come up here and go to Tallahassee to try to ensure
the water supply for Collier County.
You know, like I say, we pay a lot of property tax for that water
management, and I would really like to see somewhere written into
that agreement that if we need that water here, that we can use it.
That's about all I have to say. Once again, I wouldn't be too
fearful of legal or eminent domain, because it would cost them far
more than it will cost Collier County. So make sure that we please
get all the details ironed out before you sign anything. Thank you
very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? Don't go yet.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. McMahon, I appreciate the
fact that you've been active, speaking for other areas, too, for ATV
use. Mr. McMahon is a representative on the Governor's committee
there for ATV, alternate ATV uses. He's been very active in the
community trying to find different ways to make the process work,
and been a very reasonable person.
Not too long ago I requested of Water Management that they
work directly with Mr. McMahon about the 660 acres that are
Page 92
September 24, 2003
supposed to be donated in two years, to see what this plan may be.
And at this point in time I want to ask you, have you been
contacted by Water Management to work with them on this process?
MR. McMAHON: Not at this time, no, I haven't -- I've not
heard anything about that subject, no.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to ask Mr. Tears at this
time where we are on that and how are we going to involve the local
community, such people as Brian McMahon to -- in this process.
MR. TEARS: Clarence Tears, for the record.
Until the agreement's signed, I haven't really put a lot of effort
into the 640 acres. Once we get past this MOU and it's signed off on,
I will contact Mr. McMahon. I'll also have all the environmental
people at the table to decide what locations we should look at for the
640 acres.
But I assure you, you will be at the table as part of that process.
And I want to make sure that I don't put a lot of effort into an area
that the environmental groups say no to. And I want you at the table
to tell us what you're looking for so I purchase the right piece of
property that meets the ORV users' needs. And then we will convey
that to Collier County.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Of course, that doesn't
eliminate the possibility that we may get the use of part of the back
end of the Picayune for this, too?
MR. TEARS: That is part of the MOU. They are looking at
that. But what I can assure you is we'll will find a section of land
that they can use. I cannot assure -- I cannot assure you today that
the Division of Forestry will come up with an ORV plan in the
future, but I can assure you as part of the MOU, 640 acres plus or
minus will be purchased for you to create an ORV park.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is it possible that we may be
able to involve Mr. McMahon because of his experience -- MR. TEARS: I will--
Page 93
September 24, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- in the whole process, not only the
660 --
MR. TEARS: -- I'll go on the record, I'll keep him in the whole
process. Because the goal is to make sure that we accommodate the
ORV users. And that's the whole idea of purchasing this section of
land.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree with you, Mr.
McMahon, that we are rushing to judgment on this. And I wish we
could do a better job.
MR. McMAHON: And another question is where are they
supposed to go for the next two years? After they sign this
agreement tonight there's going to be a two-year period of time
between us -- between you finding a suitable piece of larfd and them
signing the agreement tonight. What are the people who recreate
down there right now supposed do for the next two years?
MR. TEARS: What have they been doing recently? They've
been utilizing Southern Golden Gate Estates.
MR. McMAHON: Correct. Is that going to continue?
MR. TEARS: Well, I can't speak for Division of Forestry, but --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good time for them to come up
to the Mic, I think.
Mr. Graham, please?
MR. TEARS: I'm not sure what the intent, but our approach on
the restoration is a phased approach. We're starting with Prairie
canal, working our way to the west. But wherever we're doing
construction, we will probably minimize the efforts in that area.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, when it comes to a
phased approach, it would be so wonderful to hear tonight that the
citizens are also being phased in.
MS. MAC'KIE: In my continuing role of being the -- sort of, I
guess the stick in the carrot and the stick, I want to remind you that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Are you going to give me a
Page 94
September 24, 2003
carrot?
MS. MAC'KIE: I'm going to have to be the stick again at the
moment.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A big carrot.
MS. MAC'KIE: The previous use and any current use of
Southern Golden Gate Estates by off-road vehicles is not legal. And
I'm confident that the Board is not endorsing an illegal use. Private
property could not be used. This is property that has been in private
hands and people have been trespassing or perhaps they've had
permission in some cases. But off-road vehicles are not licensed for
use on roads, and until you vacate them tonight, hopefully, those
vehicles would not be legally used on those roads.
So we have a reality here that we have had people recreating --
and it's a wonderful thing and we love it and we wish they could
continue, but I just want to caution you to be careful that you're not
endorsing something that's not legal, because it hasn't been.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If the roads are not owned by
the county, if they come state -- you know, belong, part of the
Picayune, then they can drive on them legally, correct?
MS. MAC'KIE: That depends on the management plan.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, what I'm saying is, Mr.
McMahon brought up a very good point. We've got a two-year
interim. That's a long time in a person's life that has an investment in
equipment, that's been enjoying the recreational facilities that are out
there. Until we reach that point in time where we're going to be able
to offer something to them again -- I'm sure if we told the people of
this county that you can't play golf for two years, we'd get a
tremendous response.
Mr. Graham, what have you got that's going to solve this
problem for us?
MR. GRAHAM: All right, we are in the process, we are
currently in the beginning stages of writing our five-year
Page 95
September 24, 2003
management plan, which includes a recreational component. In that
management plan, the recreational component of the management
plan, we are going to propose an area for off-road vehicle use within
the boundaries of Picayune Strand State Forest, and we're going to
focus our efforts on that--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Time line?
MR. TEARS: -- approximately 1,000 acres. The management
plan should be written within the next six months, completed. The
process -- there's nothing we can do about the process. The process is
part of state statutes. We must follow your part of the review
committee, or review group, management advisory group for our
forest in Hendry County, okay, slough. We're going to go through
the same process here. We will write the plan, it will get approved
by our director, Division of Forestry director, and then come back for
hearing and at that point we'll tweak it, allow for public input, and I
would imagine at that point we will still have that approximately
1,000 acres available for -- or recommended for off-road vehicle use.
At that point, once it passes us, it will go to the ARC committee.
ARC -- someone help me out.
MR. McMAHON: Acquisition and Restoration Council.
MR. GRAHAM: There you go. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The man knows what he's
talking about. You ought to hire him. But not until we get through
settling this thing. If we get through this.
MR. GRAHAM: And at that point ARC will either approve all
or parts of the management plan.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One more question, Mr.
Graham. And I'm sorry that we're dragging this out so long, but I
still haven't got the answer. Is there some way we might be able to
come up with a short-term interim program that will be able to meet
MR. GRAHAM: The answer -- the short answer is no. Because
Page 96
September 24, 2003
we don't want anything to jeopardize that 1,000 acres. We are
focusing on 1,000 acres for off-road vehicle use. Anything that
muddies the water is going to lessen the possibility, the chances of
this 1,000 acres being committed and bought into by the ARC
committee.
MR. McMAHON: So as of next weekend, we're out.
MR. GRAHAM: No. We're not going to change -- right now
we are not enforcing the current 51-4 rules, which says no off-road
vehicles in a forest. We haven't been enforcing that. We're not going
to enforce that until I'm given direction to do so. And I don't think
that that's going to be in the near future.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we bought some time.
MR. GRAHAM: That's as clear and firm a commitment and
answer I can give you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
least it's an answer.
A little far from clear, but at
MR. McMAHON: It's an answer. Okay, that answers my
question. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Sari McMahon. She will be
followed by A1 Perkins.
MS. McMAHON: Hello. My name is Sari McMahon and I'm
here tonight as a private citizen speaking to you.
First of all, I'd like to start off by saying I can trace my roots in
Florida back into the 1800's on my father's side of the family, and I
don't think there's anybody in this room whose roots in this state are
longer or stronger than mine.
I've been doing some research on the restoration projects, and in
1995 and '96 and the -- in Lake County, which is northwest of
Orlando, in Lake Griffin, a similar restoration area, where they
reflooded lands that had been drained for farmland some 50 years
prior were flooded out and the result was wildlife poisoned by
Page 97
September 24, 2003
contamination because of inadequate soil samples.
Another restoration by the same Water Management District,
which is the St. John's Water Management District in Lake Apopka
resulted in the deaths of numerous birds from dozens of different
species. And in all of the talk that I've been hearing about the
Everglades restoration, I have not heard one mention of any kind of
soil samples being taken out in this area.
In the meantime, even as far back as when I was in high school
in Fort Myers, it was a well known fact that if you had something
that you wanted to get rid, of you dumped it out in the streets east of
Naples, whether it be a dead body or toxic chemicals. Lord knows
what's been dumped out there.
My concern is if they go out there and they tear out these streets
and they flood this land, what is going to happen to the Ten
Thousand Islands, the Everglades and all the other wildlife areas if
we face the kind of wildlife deaths from toxic chemicals that they
faced in Lake Griffin and Lake Apopka just here within the last 10
years right here in this state?
And I just -- I want to know what kind of soil samples are going
to be done? The soil samples around Lake Apopka, I believe,
amounted to one for every 37 acres. And it didn't do any good.
There were a lot of-- a lot of wildlife was killed.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We'll get that answered for you. Is
there anything else?
MS. McMAHON: And I just -- I didn't know if you guys were
aware of this, these other projects and the devastation caused to the
wildlife in that area. And we're looking at a lot larger area here than
what they had in these two areas up there. And we're looking at a
potentially far greater loss of wildlife. So-- and that's my concern,
and that's really all I have to say.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is A1 Perkins. He'll be
Page 98
September 24, 2003
followed by Helen Nobel.
MR. PERKINS: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, you
people at home.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Al, I just don't think you were
duly sworn in, because you said, so help me Clinton.
MR. PERKINS: That's right, because this whole thing is a
farce.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, then can he speak?
I need to ask the attorney, as long as he wasn't --
MR. PERKINS: He also said it wasfft necessary in the
beginning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excuse me, excuse me.
Is that necessary?
MR. PETTIT: My recommendation is that this be handled like
a quasi-judicial hearing, which would require speakers to be sworn.
MR. PERKINS: So you want me to be sworn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. PERKINS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just make it legal.
MR. PERKINS: I swear to tell the whole truth, which is not
being told in this room tonight. How's that grab you?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Pettit?
MR. PETTIT: Could the court reporter please swear Mr.
Perkins.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think at this time would be a good
time to take a break. Let's take a five-minute break. (A short recess was held.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Everybody take their seats, please.
Please take your seats.
Mr. Thomas, welcome.
Would you swear in Mr. Perkins, please. Raise your right hand,
Page 99
September 24, 2003
Mr. Perkins.
MR. PERKINS: Notice there's no bird.
(The witness was duly sworn.)
MR. PERKINS: So help me God. And I've been doing it for
years right here at this podium. Okay?
Now, if you're going to give away any of the roads in Southern
Golden Gate Estates -- oh, by the way, before I jump into that, my
name is A1 Perkins. I speak for 4,000 people who have been in the
past and are current, that I speak for them because they can't afford to
be here. They're working people with dirty fingernails, a brown
neck, and they're hard workers, but they can't afford to take and make
these meetings.
I also take and speak for the 2,000 people who signed petitions
that you people don't want to pay any attention to, who want that
road put in for an evacuation route.
I also speak for 31 other people named Perkins. You can find
their names on the wall at the Viet Nam in Washington D.C. They've
been silenced, but I haven't, and I won't be.
If you're going to give away the roads, give away Gulf Shore
Boulevard, 41, the Airport Road, Goodlette-Frank. Because as you
people know, because I've provided the information to you in letter
form on the DEP stationary, that they intend to take all of the land
from the Gulf Coast to within 10 miles of the City of Fort
Lauderdale. You have that information, yet you refuse to tell the
people the truth.
Now, at the same time, too, these are the same people who are
trying to grab those roads who tried to grab 41 for the United
Nations. Most of these people don't even know what I'm talking
about. They wanted to take and make it part and they wanted to shut
down all the traffic out there.
Your Board, all of the Board, when they voted the last time to
go forward on this, entered into collusion with the state to extort the
Page 100
September 24, 2003
lands. Now, with that -- and they made it all part of the record, it's
right there. We have traitors here, we have turncoats here and
whatever else you want. Some of these people in this doggone room
right now, like that, believe me, if they were in Korea, I would have
had no problem showing them the inside of a body bag.
We're losing $3 million in tax revenues because of your actions
out there. You're going to fill in the canal out there, which is a
reservoir for Marco Island's water. Six L Farms is going to go to
condominiums, so is Thomas Farms, so is Gargulio Farms.
Now, when you talk about the panther and everything else and
recreation, they already said they're going to put seven inches of
water out there, minimum. That's on the high spot. Almost year
round. You tell me how you're going to ride a horse and tell me how
the panther's going to eat through seven inches of water or the
raccoon or the any of the rest of them? When are you people going
to wake up? These people here think you're so damn dumb, it isn't
funny.
Storm surge. When you add the water out there and a hurricane
comes across, which we just missed, the storm surge out of the east is
going to nail you and then turn right around because of the
circulation of the storm and hit you from the west. You people, you
want bodies floating in the bay and on the streets? They do. The
Department of Environmental Protection, they have came here and
they have told lies. Because when they said they were going to close
Marco Island Airport unless you traded Jane's Scenic Drive, that they
would taken -- anyhow, the Commissioner says, whoa, wait a minute.
I told them they don't-- the FAA is the only one that can take and
close that airport. And the DEP state person said you're right. He
admitted to lying boldface right at you.
Now, when we get to the flooding, South Florida Water
Management, they've been caught twice. Even the Naples Daily
News put it in the paper showing how they deliberately tried to flood
Page 101
September 24, 2003
the people out by four foot of water over their permitted level. Those
canals were put out there to control the flooding, not only just in
Southern Golden Gate Estates but East Naples, Marco Island,
Goodlette, Isle of Capri, all around here. This whole thing is a farce
for money, because they're making big bucks off of this thing.
Hunting, fishing and camping. Can you go out there and hunt
when there's water? Can you take and fish when there's water? Can
you camp when there's water? Don't forget, moccasins swim in
water and they can hit you just as good in the water as they can on
the land.
One other item and I'm going to make this point blank clear.
Cindy Kemp made a statement that she took and had the
documentation about suing. My people have the money and have the
people who are going to enter into inverse condemnation. They're
not only going to sue the South Florida Water Management but Pam
Mac'Kie. They're going to send --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Perkins, I have to ask you to
wrap up, please.
MR. PERKINS: They're going to sue Nancy Payton and all the
rest of these communistic charities.
At the same time, too, you people are not going to be immune
from these lawsuits. And when I say lawsuits, whether you people
know it or not, I deal in very expensive horses. The most expensive
breeding costs a half a million dollars on a maybe you get a decent
foal to run. A half a million bucks. We're not playing games for
nickels and dimes.
And Fred, I know you got a couple of million dollars, I'll take
you to the cleaners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Perkins.
MR. PERKINS: Thank you. Don't forget the second
amendment of the Constitution.
You people out there sitting paying the bill, put it in place. And
Page 102
September 24, 2003
if you don't know what that is, a well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state. People, buy yourself a gun,
you're going to need it.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Helen Nobel, she will be
followed by Bernard Nobel.
MS. NOBEL: Commissioners, my name is Helen Nobel, and
we own property in the Belle Meade southeast. Thank you for your
time. I'm going to have to read this, because I'm so nervous.
Thank you for the time you've given me to speak. We got a
permit to put all the buildings we have on the land and a home, a nice
driveway. So we don't have to ride in water when the water is high.
I love the tranquility of the birds singing, no horns blaring, and it's
just quiet.
When we bought, we didn't know we were going to have all this
problem of taking Miller out so we can't get to this place. For why?
No reason.
I love the room. We have a high -- I love the room. We have
no high-rise. And I love to be able to plant what I want. Well, my
kids and my grand kids have -- well, my kids and my grand kids have
the same privilege. In the dictionary privilege means a special right.
How can they have a right when we don't even have a right?
This is our residence, not a camp. The ambulance would not
hardly come down 124 because it had a wet hole or a pot. It was wet
there for some reason -- we haven't had it before but we've got it
now. None of us ever want to use an ambulance, but it was really
wonderful when we had this use.
I want to tell you what happened. We had an experience last
Tuesday morning, 9/9/03, that we never want to go through again. I
woke up about 5:00 a.m. and was so dizzy I wasn't able to walk. And
it woke my husband up. He told me -- I told him to get the
telephone, which was laying on a chair in our living room, because
he couldn't see. I went out the side door -- he went out the side door
Page 103
September 24, 2003
and fell on the porch, as he couldn't move at first. I was trying to
direct them to our residence on 50 --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Nobel, why don't you just take a
break here for a minute, please, until we get a majority of the Board
here.
And we're, you know, same people like you are, and I don't
want you to make -- feel intimidated because we're sitting up here.
MS. NOBEL: All right. I don't like to speak, that's why I've
never done it before.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would you like to sit down? We'll
give you a Mic.
MS. NOBEL: No, I want to finish this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I mean no, and speak from --
I want to make you feel comfortable.
MS. NOBEL: I won't pass out. If I didn't pass out then, I won't
now.
MR. PERKINS: Can I make a statement about your sound
system, that it's good now versus what it was. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
I'm sorry, Ms. Nobel, you can continue any time you want.
MS. NOBEL: I forgot where I was at.
He told me to call 9-1-1 on our cell phone, and I went out the
side door, and he fell on the porch. And he couldn't move at first. I
was trying to direct them to our residence at 1570 124 Avenue
Southeast Miller. And she was having a problem because our phone
was cutting in and out. We're trying to get electricity out there, but --
I told her to tell dispatch to call Don Peterson, because we know him,
the fire chief of Golden Gate, because he knows where our residence
is, and told dispatcher of the lock combination. I had to give them
the lock combination. Here I am laying on the bed.
So I finally went outside, and told them where -- what they had
to do. Well, they wouldn't hardly come through 124 because there
Page 104
September 24, 2003
was a spot there that was wet. And I don't know, it has never been
wet before but this year it's wet. There are a couple of culverts that
were taken out, one was on 108 1 believe and there 106, and the other
one was 102. And why those culverts were taken out, I have no idea.
They haven't been replaced.
So anyhow, Don Peterson was concerned of the time it took for
them to come out to check our problem of gasses. What it was, we
thought it was -- we didn't know what it was. I thought we had food
poisoning. I just didn't know because we were both so dizzy, we
couldn't move. And when I finally got outside, I said I want to go
back in and lay down. He says no, don't go back in and lay down.
So we found out that it was our septic. We thought maybe it was
our septic tank, because we had been gone to Iowa for three weeks.
Once in awhile we aren't down there, but once in a while we are there
all the time. But it was happened to be our septic tank was coming up
through our traps because they were dry. And so I quickly poured
water down those traps and I made sure I have water. We have been
gone. We went to a -- we have relatives in Iowa. His mother is 96
and we have children in Michigan, so we do go there a couple of
weeks of every year.
And we found out those were leaking gasses. And Don checked
all over. Later on he give us -- he give us a monitor for checking
what do you call it, gas fumes, and what's the other one? I know
what the other one is -- yeah, carbon monoxide. And he give us --
we have them, but they weren't catching it. And the -- I lost my train
of thought. The oxygen wasn't getting to our heads.
But anyhow, the following week we went out again and we
stayed overnight. It's getting cooler where we can stay there at night.
And we stayed the night and we had this thing on the -- we didn't
have any windows.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Nobel, please continue. Finish
ape
Page 105
September 24, 2003
MS. NOBEL: It took -- it took the ambulance about an hour
and a half, I think, wasn't it, Bernie? About an hour and a half to get
there. They didn't know where it was. They didn't have any idea how
to get to us. And that's -- here you're laying and your head is -- my
head is split so bad, I couldn't hardly think. And Bernie was so dizzy
he couldn't walk to the gate to open it. So we tried to get the
combination, and -- it's just a bad mess.
Anyhow, we don't want our road to go out, Miller. Because if
ambulances go through there and it's lime rock, they're going to sink
away, which they did on our road. Our road, 124, is lime rock. And
Miller is asphalt. And if they take that asphalt out, these trucks are
going to sink away, same way as the ambulance will sink away like
when they came in our driveway. We can't have that. We planned on
using this as our home.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Bernard Nobel. He will be
followed by Don Peterson.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Peterson has left.
MS. FILSON: He will be followed by Matt Hudson.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Hudson is not here.
MS. FILSON: He will be followed by Fred Thomas.
MR. NOBEL: Commissioners, my name is Bernie Nobel. We
have a residence at 1570 124th Avenue Southeast, Naples.
According to Exhibit C of the agreement between the Board of
Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund and South Florida
Water Management District and the Collier County, Florida -- south
-- and Collier County, Florida, whereas, and on Page 4 of 7, Item 8 --
it's on Page 4 of the agreement. It's under Item 8. Secondary dry
season roads, represented by a dashed line. Look at Exhibition (sic)
C, if that could be put up on the board.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Nobel, you have to take that Mic
Page 106
September 24, 2003
with you.
MR. NOBEL: That would bring you from this here area right
up there -- I understand it's 82 now. It wasn't marked on the
Exhibition C. You'll see there's no numbers there, from this point
through here. There's no numbers on the -- these here streets here.
But there is up there. But that's from 82 down to 124 and 126.
According to that statements (sic) that are made there and those
paragraphs, these will be at and below grade, according to what they
are proposing to you people here.
Now, they are going to take this road from this point to this
point completely out of the above grade. It is above grade now. This
road is above grade from here down to here. It's above grade.
Now, if that road is taken out and put at grade or below grade,
there is water. There'd be water on it right now. And that means
roughly seven miles from here to here that it will be below grade or
at grade, which is water. I'd just like -- have everybody understand
what you mean by grade and above grade. Because I think some
aren't understanding where this grade and above grade is.
Because this road now, from this point here to this point, to our
property, is above grade. That road is above grade now. And if it is
removed -- and you see it on Exhibition C it is showing that it's going
to be above grade and at grade. Well, at grade is the same as what's
out in the fields right now. And there's water there. There's water all
around that area right now. It's flowing through some culverts, there
was some culverts removed. I don't know why or when they done it.
It was roughly done about six months ago. So what -- who removed
them, we don't know who removed them. The culverts are still
laying there.
And the county always takes care of the road. We have no
problem with the county taking care of the road. They're always
patching. And that's why -- they didn't even patch this year. After it
was removed, it wasn't patched. But they are patching up farther up
Page 107
September 24, 2003
in this area right in here, there is a little spot. It's a tar road so you
can ride in an inch of water, two inches of water on a tar road,
asphalt road. But on a road that is not asphalted or lime rock, you're
going to find that it will be nothing but a Miller extension for seven
miles. And how are you going to get fire trucks, ambulances, EMS?
My wife told about the situation we had before, so I'm not going
to go into that. And that's why I'd like to know exactly if everybody
understands what above grade, at grade or above grade, what that
means on the map.
And that's -- because that's a big factor. If you do not know
whether it stands above grade or below grade, that's a big factor there
in this here settlement that is being worked out. Because if it's at
grade or below grade, which that is what it reads there, and if that
isn't changed or anything, it is a seven-mile ride down in there
without anything -- a vehicle isn't going to make it right now. I
mean, you ride in the sand one or two miles, that truck will be sunk
down before it will even get 'em a half a mile down there. That's fire
or any type of emergency vehicle in that area.
So that's where -- I mean, we'd just like to make sure that
everybody understands -- that Commissioners understand where
above grade, at grade and below grade, what that all means. Because
I think there's some understanding that well, it's going to be a road.
Well, it's not a road if that road is under water. Lime rock or sand
road under water or an inch of water on it will develop with one or
two trips through it. We have that in our fields on our property. If I
ride my tractor through the fields --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Nobel, I have to ask you to wrap
up your comments, please.
MR. NOBEL: Well, I guess that's probably all I have, then.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Nobel, Commissioner Coletta
has a question for you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, not actually for Mr.
Page 108
September 24, 2003
Nobel, but there's a couple of things. One, and I understand that the
roads that they're going to take out that are there, those are going to
be at grade, not below grade. And I -- you know, once more for the
record.
The other thing that I found very disturbing when I was listening
to it was the culverts being removed. Who started this restoration
effort before the Commission actually signed off?.
MR. TEARS: Collier County did that.
MS. MAC'KIE: Collier County did that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your name, for the record?
MS. MAC'KIE: My name is Pam Mac'Kie. And it's our
understanding that -- that's it is the county. Not even --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My county road crew came out
and removed the culverts from underneath the road?
MS. MAC'KIE: I can't tell you that I know that from personal
knowledge, I can tell you it was not the Water Management District,
it was not the Big Cypress Basin and it was not the state. We have
been told--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, do you know
anything about it?
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Nobel, your residence here in
Collier County, is that a homestead residence?
MR. NOBEL: It's not a homestead residence. The buildings are
all -- I mean, you can have 10 homes in the county, if you want. I
mean, it's wherever you want -- it's a residence, we can live there.
And we do spend time there two weeks at a time. Last winter we had
a man stay there all winter because of the part of the hunting which, I
mean, I hunt myself, so I have no objection to hunters. And because
of the action, because it's mostly all Dade County cars in there that
are in there hunting. Last week it was four or five of them with horse
trailers in there from Dade County. They were right by our place.
Page 109
September 24, 2003
They were only a mile -- or one street away from us, that's all they
were, on 122. That's where they were in there with their trailer and
with their horses. I think they were hunting. I don't know -- they
were unloading the horses when we went to a meeting there Sunday.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Thank you, Mr. Nobel. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Fred Thomas. He will be
followed by Brad Cornell.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's possible maybe -- being that it
took so long for ambulances to get there anyway and the road won't
be as passable, we have helicopters to come in that would probably
give a faster service, right?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Okay, I just wanted to make
sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Thomas?
MR. THOMAS: For the record, Fred Thomas. While I am a
member of the Big Cypress Basin Board, I'm just speaking as a
Collier County citizen.
I want to take this time to applaud you folk for the outstanding
diligence that you're doing to negotiate an agreement that far exceeds
what would have happened if nobody got involved in this process,
trying to correct a problem that was made many, many years ago to
protect the water supply and the estuaries.
And there's a whole part of the question that nobody remembers.
And if you noticed in Sunday's paper, that there's going to be a
series of 15 articles for the Naples Daily News talking about what
we're trying to prevent or correct as this portion of the Gulf of
Mexico.
I think you've done a good job, I'm proud of what you're doing,
and I think as long as you've got citizens in Collier County sitting on
the Big Cypress Basin Board, we will continue monitoring to make
sure the interest of our County is protected. Thank you.
Page 110
September 24, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Brad Comell. He will be
followed by Nicole Ryan.
MR. CORNELL: Good evening, Commissioners. Brad Cornell
here on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society.
I'd like to first quickly remind everybody about what some of
these benefits are, and Fred Thomas just mentioned one of them,
which is that restoration of the Southern Golden Gate Estates is going
to give us improved fisheries in the Gulf, because we're going to be
protecting and helping to restore our estuaries in the Ten Thousand
Islands and Rookery Bay that spawn the fish that are the basis for the
recreational and commercial fishing in the Gulf.
State forest recreation, as we already have seen documented in
the agreement. Recharge and protection of the aquifers and our water
supply. Water quality improvement. At least 640 acres of
ORV/ATV recreation park. And as we see in the agreement, an
exploration of another 1,000 acres, or at least some combination of
those. And $20 million over the next 20 years for secondary canal
maintenance through the Big Cypress Basin. And restoration of
habitat for threatened and endangered species. This is no small part
of this whole effort.
Collier County Audubon Society will help find a site for this
ORV park. We feel it is an absolute necessity. We're concerned
about the state of affairs now for ORV and ATV use. We think it's
not safe for our citizens and it's not good for our environment.
Having a good recreation park for this purpose I think is a very good
solution, and we're dedicated to help find that and make that a
solution.
The vacation of these road right-of-ways is going to be the
beginning of the restoration of the Everglades. This is the very first
project of the comprehensive Everglades restoration project. And it's
going to benefit not only the citizens of Collier County but many
Page 111
September 24, 2003
citizens all throughout the State of Florida and in the United States,
because this is part of that Everglades restoration.
So Collier County Audubon Society urges you to sign the
agreement tonight. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Nicole Ryan. She will be
followed by Mark Gerstel.
MS. RYAN: Good evening. For the record, Nicole Ryan, here
on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida and our 5,500
family memberships.
And the Conservancy is here this evening, as we were in July, to
support the county's vacation of these right-of-way easements and to
ask that you do sign the approval for this vacation tonight.
We believe that the benefits to the county, including the $20
million from the Big Cypress Basin for canal maintenance, will be a
tremendous benefit to Collier County, along with the 640 acres for
ORV recreational use.
Finally, the Conservancy would like to applaud the efforts on all
sides, the county, the state, the district and the Big Cypress Basin in
negotiating this deal. Conservancy really believes that this sort of
collaborative effort is going to be very helpful in maintaining the
mutually beneficial relationship that Collier County has with state
and federal partners. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mark Gerstel. He will be
followed by Pat Humphries.
MR. GERSTEL: My name is Mark Gerstel. I represent the
Property Right to Action Committee.
First, you're familiar with the term snowbirds. Usually they live
up north and they come down to Collier County usually during the
winter, correct? Right? Agreed. Well, that's what the Nobels do.
They live up north, and they come down to Southern Golden Gate
Estates in the winter. They spend a good amount of time in their
Page 112
September 24, 2003
home during the winter months, just like any other snowbird. So,
you know, consider that when you're, you know, possibly, you know,
doing something with their roads so they can't get to their home.
Also, what Brad Comell says about restoration, we all agree
with restoration, we're all for that. But it's not proven what's
planning -- what the plan is. So we all have to be accountabil -- we
all have accountable -- we all have to be accountable, and of course
our Commissioners are the number one people for us.
I guess my biggest question, what's the rash to vacate the roads?
That's my biggest question. You know, what is the rash? Why is
Southwest Florida Water Management in such a rash to start these
projects? Could it be something to do with an end run around
NEPA? You know, that's when you deal with federal funds. I mean,
you haven't even signed the -- and given the roads over to them and
they've already applied for permits. I mean, what's the rush?
There's so many uncertains. You know, I've been listening
today. I think this, I might do this, who, where. We spent -- the
Commissioners and Pam Mac'Kie spent over 40 minutes on the gate
issue. There's so many uncertains. Again, why are we rushing this
through? Why don't we just send it back for further study?
Commissioners, don't be frightened of the threat of eminent
domain. You know, it's not politically correct these days to do it.
Just like Brian McMahon said, they're not in a rush to do eminent
domain. And if you're not really sure that this is the right thing to do
for the citizens, think about it. What's the rush to vacate the lands? I
know Southwest Florida Water Management wants this done quickly.
You know, weeks ago they applied for the permits.
And finally, Commissioners, please stand up for your Collier
County citizens. There's too many uncertainties. You know, send it
back to the different committees for further study. And you have to
be accountable for us. You know, you're our representatives. You
know, please don't dot the I that quickly, think about it. You heard
Page 113
September 24, 2003
the Nobels' stories, you heard Cindy Kemp, you've heard Brian,
you've heard Al. You've heard a lot of different people. There
would be a lot more people here -- just like Helen Nobel said, she's
very nervous when it comes to speaking. There would be a lot of
other people probably up here if they weren't so scared of standing in
front of a microphone. So even though there's only four or five
people here today, you've gotten the e-mails. Mr. Coletta showed us
lots of e-mails. He's the only one who stood up to represent and be
accountable to the citizens of Collier County.
So I'm asking you, you know, the other three County
Commissioners here today, what's the rush to vacate the land? Think
about it. If you're not 100 percent sure, just like in a jury, if you're
not 100 percent sure, think about it for a little while longer.
Southwest Florida Water Management, I know they want their
permits, they want to get started, but this isn't their land, it's our land.
It's the citizens' land. Do not rush. Why vacate the land so quickly?
Think about it. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Pat Humphries. She will be
followed by your final speaker, Hank Graham.
MS. HUMPHRIES: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My
name is Pat Humphries, and I'm representing the Golden Gate Estates
area civic association and its 271 members.
The Estates civic association supported the restoration project in
its original form. We do not support this project in its present form.
We have definitely been shortchanged. There are no definitive
assurances or timelines for access to the Picayune Strand State
Forest. There are no descriptions of the types of recreation that will
be offered or the amenities that will facilitate these activities. The
Division of Forestry says these are forthcoming. Maybe three to five
years down the road. Because they have to know what effect the
restoration will have on the land. But that's too long.
The term of willing seller turned into a lie as hundreds of
Page 114
September 24, 2003
property owners were eminent domained. The term we will not
eminent domain homesteaded property became a blatant deception as
the Department of Environmental Protection continues to request the
Governor and his cabinet to do just that.
The ATV park, which doesn't seem to have a bright future, does
not accommodate the people who enjoy a quieter, more gentle form
of communing with nature. The walkers, the bike riders, the
fisherman, the hikers, campers, and canoeists. And if you haven't
driven down Jane's Scenic Drive, you better do it fast, it may be your
last chance.
The taking away of water rights is extremely disturbing, as a
special interest group known as The Commercial 100 are lobbying
our Governor to change Florida water laws that would route water
from rural to booming areas and encourage private water
development on state land.
Out of the nine items -- out of the nine items listed in the MOU,
the first five are related to the rights-of-way for utility services. The
other four that relate to the public are so vague they have little value
and leave plenty of room to deceive us once again. Said public being
the financial source of this project.
When did we become the enemies of the environment? Not
only are these agencies treating us like spoilers of nature, they are
treating all of us -- they are putting all of us into the same category as
a small minority that tears up and down the roads with a buzz saw in
one hand and a beer can in the other.
The MOU is being rushed through too quickly. It's vague, it's
disturbing and it's suspect. We haven't even been given the courtesy
of how this operation is going to be executed.
If the promises made many years ago have been broken, what is
to keep the ones that are being made now from being broken? This
has to be the worst real estate deal on record: 55,000 acres for 640
acres. It's a betrayal, a betrayal on the part of the government entities
Page 115
September 24, 2003
who have shut out the residents of Collier County, and a betrayal on
the part of the environmental organizations who have shut out their
members. The most endangered specie relating to this project is the
truth. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Final speaker is Hank Graham.
MR. GRAHAM: Hi. I will keep it short. I've been up here
more than I care to be, quite frankly. But I represent the Division of
Forestry. We are the land managers for this parcel of land. We
always have and we will continue to place priority on access and
recreation.
Yes, it's going to be different than what it is today, but it's going
to be safer. And we will continue to improve upon the recreational
opportunities in Picayune State Forest, as well as the access.
As far as recreation goes, I've heard a lot of comments we don't
have a plan. We have a plan in place. We have a five-year
management plan that's in place. Currently we have a recreational
plan that is currently in place. We are currently allowing camping,
horseback riding, hiking, hunting, bicycling. We are not enforcing
OHV use on the forest. Fishing is going on as we speak. We do
allow recreational uses on the forest. We will continue to do so.
Will it change? Absolutely. The restoration will see to that. It's
going to change, it's going to be different. Fishing will improve.
Camping, where it exists today will change. It will probably move
further north into the forest. Horseback riding will continue to exist.
Hunting, we currently have a wildlife management area designated
for Belle Meade track, which is west of the blocks. We're looking --
we had a meeting today to encourage game and fish, Florida Wildlife
Commission, to establish or expand the WMA, wildlife management
area, into the south blocks. So we'll have regulated hunting in a
much safer manner than exists today on the entire forest, hopefully
by the next hunting season, 04-05.
Again, bicycling, OHV areas, we've already talked about OHV
Page 116
September 24, 2003
areas. We're going to try to work very hard to establish an OHV area
in the Belle Meade portion of the property, if that's possible. That
will be a proposal. And again I discussed earlier the steps it will
have to take to get approved.
Fishing. With the restoration project, fishing should improve.
We're going to have many smaller lakes, as opposed to a big canal.
I'm not sure what alternative will be used. There may still be one
small canal that remains or not, I'm not sure. That's something that
Water Management will address in time.
But again, a shooting range. We're looking to develop a
shooting range. That is another need that's been expressed to us by
the Collier citizens.
We are listening to the needs of Collier County and its citizens.
We're trying to accommodate them as best we can. We have an
obligation as a state agency to manage the land in a proper fashion,
make sure that it doesn't degrade. We turn it over to our children and
grandchildren in better shape than we received it. That is without a
doubt a primary mission of ours is to manage the land properly.
And with proper management comes some restrictions of use.
That's inevitable. The recreational opportunities that exist today, as I
said earlier, will change. There's no doubt about that. I'm not going
to sit here and pretend that they won't. Some uses will no longer be
allowed or will be changed different, different areas, or what have
you. That's a given. But it will be recreation at the best we can offer
in a safe fashion.
As far as emergency response, it's in our best interest to assure
that our citizens utilizing Picayune will have the best emergency
response services available to them. We'd be fools to not develop a
system or guidelines, a cooperative agreement with the fire
departments to have nothing less than that.
So again, it's in our best interest. We're not going to let that go
away and have our recreators and you forest users out there without
Page 117
September 24, 2003
some sort of access to emergency services.
With that, I'm done. Is there any questions?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Question by the board members?
Mr. Graham, Commissioner Halas, for everybody's interest, has been
with us for quite a while.
The -- in the MOU, it does state the activities for recreation.
And that's afforded to just Collier County residents or--
MR. GRAHAM: All citizens or non-citizens. All visitors to
Collier County.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I know Representative Davis is
working very diligent on trying to get some language to be accepted
by all parties for what type of ATV use in the Picayune that wouldn't
compromise the restoration. Is there a possibility of that happening
in the future?
MR. GRAHAM: Yes. I spoke with Davis, Representative
Davis, two weeks ago. Met with him again this afternoon. And
based upon previous conversation, spoke with our director of
Forestry, and yes, that is something that we will most definitely
consider.
As I mentioned earlier, we want to make sure that nothing
compromises the possibility of getting that 1,000 acre area we're
looking at -- we're looking to propose. And as a result of that, we
don't want to throw other OHV issues into the mix.
So we 'want to try to focus on that area and then our director,
Mike Long, indicated that that is something we will most definitely
pursue, allowing OHVs and other portions of the -- you know,
restricted trails and what have you in the forest. But we'll address
that, definitely.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I guess the concern that I have, what
Mr. Clarence Tears said, is we're going to have to check with the
environmental groups to see if it's suitable land. And I haven't found
any suitable land in Collier County for any type of recreation that the
Page 118
September 24, 2003
environmental community is going to support.
And also, my concern is, you know, there -- we're going to
check with them first before we check with the people to see if it's
suitable for their use. You know, as long as it fits our Growth
Management Plan, I don't see what the big deal is.
MR. GRAHAM: I'm in agreement with you there. We will
obviously consult all interested parties and get their comments and
make our recommendations. And ultimately it's up to the ARC
committee, Acquisition Review Committee, to make the final
decision. But we'll most definitely make our recommendation. And
it will include --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I just want to tell you I appreciate
your time you spent with me. Because I think out of all the agencies,
you've been honest.
MR. GRAHAM: I try.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And we talked about trying to get the
Friends of the Picayune down there. I still feel that that's going to
work --
MR. GRAHAM: I agree with you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- like Jim Kalvin said and --
MR. GRAHAM: Well, we have a -- we're looking to hire a
position, a park service specialist. And that individual will be
coordinating our volunteer programs in Picayune, and so I think
that's going to help us tremendously there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, everything that you
mentioned is absolutely beautiful. I mean, if it all came down to be,
just as we're saying. Problem is, is that we've got a legal document
in front of us where we're signing over our rights, and in that
document, it's very limited to what it guarantees us as far as rights
and it's very vague on all the other parts. I don't want to say I don't
Page 119
September 24, 2003
trust you, I've seen you do some remarkable things in other areas.
But I do have serious concerns. I think that this document is a little
premature. I do think it could have used a lot more work. I can
almost tell the way this Commission is going to go with this, and I
know when this is over with I'm still going to be an active participant
in trying to bring this around, and I'm going to be bringing as much
of the community into this as possible.
But forgive me if there's a total lack of trust. When I went up to
Tallahassee back about six months ago at the Governor's invitation,
the meeting was cancelled, but I did get to meet with members of the
cabinet, and they wanted to know what the problem was. And I told
them that I was very concerned how things were coming together,
and I wanted to be a part of it, being the Commissioner of that area.
I was assured at that time that Forestry would be coming to me
to talk to me at great length to be able to work this out, to be able to
go over the recreational needs. Never happened. I sent two more
reminder letters back up to Tallahassee that that meeting hadn't taken
place. So if I seem less than overly enthused about what you're
offering at this point in time, it's the lack of good faith on the part of
Forestry and the state cabinet to come back and to talk. Once again
MR. GRAHAM: We have met in the past and discussed
recreational issues.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I know, but we never got
down to that point where we really got into discussions. It just didn't
happen. It was supposed to happen on a level above you. They were
supposed to come down and talk to me. And I was assured that at that
time. And that happened to Mike Davis' office so I'm sure he will
substantiate it. So that's the reason why there's less than
overenthusiastic support.
Although the restoration effort I think is a wonderful idea, if it's
done right. I'm very concerned about the rights of individuals, and
Page 120
September 24, 2003
I'm concerned that we're going to reach an agreement where we're
going to have to go on blind faith that many of these items are going
to come together. I'm concerned with the fact that the document we
got can't be amended because of the fact the parties aren't here that
have the power to do it. Everything from the south -- the gate at the
south end, roads at grade or below grade, emergency access, who
will be reimbursing the taxpayers, and such things too as the culverts
being removed. Everybody just shrugging their shoulders right now.
Nobody understands -- oh, Mr. Mudd's got an answer.
MR. MUDD: We called Mr. Kant. Those two culverts had
collapsed and they have been replaced. And what's on the side of the
road are the remnants of what was collapsed.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's great that we could remove
one of the problems from the inventory. I thank you for that, Mr.
Mudd.
MR. MUDD: I try to get the answer for you, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much for your
time, Mr. Graham, you've been -- you've been very good at your
presentation.
MR. GRAHAM: I appreciate it, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We still haven't resolved the issue
about --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, we haven't.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. About the compensation for
emergency services.
(A short break was taken.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're on.
MR. GRAHAM: Okay. Again, Hank Graham, Division of
Forestry, I spend far too much time up here.
With regard to compensation for emergency medical services on
the forest, I don't have an answer for you. I will speak with the
director-- assistant director tomorrow and will come up with some
Page 121
September 24, 2003
arrangements. I mean, we have been working under our cooperative
agreement. We lease equipment to local fire departments at no cost
for fire response. We assist them, they assist us. We are in the fire
business as well. No, we're not in the medical business, but we are in
the fire business, and we've cooperated with the fire departments for
decades and will continue to do so. But if there's a need for some
sort of financial compensation, I'll get with the powers that be in
Tallahassee and we'll resolve this issue. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MS. MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, could I just -- Pam Mac'Kie
again for the record. I had wanted to submit the letters of no
objection to the vacation, for the record. I'll just deliver those to Mr.
Mudd, if that's okay?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's fine.
Commissioner Halas, do you have any questions?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Not at this time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Chadwell?
MS. CHADWELL: I had a couple of items -- excuse me, items
as well that I'd like to enter into the record, Commissioner.
I have a proof of publication of the notice of hearing for
tonight's proceeding. I have a couple affidavits of mailing. These
relate to the actual notices that were given to property owners that
are located within 250 feet of the right-of-ways that are the subject of
the petition tonight.
And I also wanted to include the document from the Department
of Environmental Protection that memorializes their action on this
agreement back on September 18th. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Pettit, are we going to handle
this -- these two items in one motion?
MR. PETTIT: I think that can be done. You have obviously the
public hearing on the vacation of the roads and the consideration of
the agreement, and it would seem that you would handle those in the
Page 122
September 24, 2003
same motion.
I don't know whether you're prepared to close the public hearing
at this point?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further questions?
(No response.)
MR. PETTIT: Let me just say that if we're at the end of the
public hearing, what you're going to do with respect to the vacation
of these roads, that's the issue before you, the statute says that what
you have to do is consider whether it is advisable. And the cases tell
us that one of the key factors or the key factor in that consideration is
whether you find it's in the best interest of the public. So as you
deliberate, once the public hearing is closed, that would be what you
would -- the standard, I guess, that you will be deliberating under. It
is advisable and obviously the key factor is is it in the best interest of
the public.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a close to the public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
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.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Page 123
September 24, 2003
The -- Commissioners, I heard all the concerns of the people at
the last hearing, and was working with Ms. Mac'Kie in trying to get
some of those answers. One of the answers that we were diligently
seeking is why can't the county have a well down there?
And I was told many a things, and I think it's because Pam
Mac'Kie was told where it is. And I went there. It wasn't there. And
I'm talking about the CERP agreement.
Well, finally the district director did guide us in the right
direction to find that. But I feel that DEP has not taken under
consideration of what the citizens of Collier County want. And I'm
very disappointed in that. And again, I want to thank Forestry
Department and the District for working with us, but I don't even
think that Secretary Struhs is aware of how his employees are
treating the residents and other elected officials in the State of
Florida.
I'll entertain a motion in the findings that this is in the public
interest, correct?
MR. PETTIT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And this is advisable?
MR. PETTIT: I'm not sure. Is your motion to find that it is
advisable and is in the public interest to abandon the roads?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, the entertaining of a motion,
yes.
MR. PETTIT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I so move.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And is that to approve the
agreement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would like to approve the
attached agreement, contingent on the approval of the petition for
vacation being presented by the Department of Environmental
Protection, and authorize its chairman to execute the agreement.
Let me add to this by saying, you know, people have said over
Page 124
September 24, 2003
and over tonight, you have to think of us, the citizens. And that's
exactly what I'm doing. But I'm not thinking about recreational this
week or in the next six months. I'm thinking about recreational in the
next few years, but I'm thinking about our kids' water. I'm thinking
about our own water sources. I'm thinking about our future.
And, you know, we've been a very selfish community up until
now. We've only thought about our own pleasures and our own
developing. We haven't thought about preserving this Florida area for
our gene -- our future generations. So I make that motion with all
my heart.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And your motion on the vacation of
easements?
MR. PETTIT: The motion that you made, Commissioner Fiala,
includes not only the motion to vacate the roadways as in the best
interest of the public but also simultaneously to accept the agreement
that's been presented tonight?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's exactly right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second the motion for
discussion purposes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I have some comments.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The agreement, as it stands now,
appears to have a number of omissions and areas where additional
clarification is necessary. But I do believe, based upon what I have
been told in this quasi-judicial hearing, and what has become part of
the official record, that we have adequate legal basis for enforcing
the understanding that we have established here. And they include, of
course, the 640 acres for recreational purposes, including but not
limited to recreational ATV use. And the important phrase is "and
must be acceptable to the county". That gives us control. And
Page 125
September 24, 2003
certainly the county is going to expect those people who want to
recreate out there to be involved in the process of evaluating and
considering that property.
I would not vote for this agreement if I were not assured that all
of the primary all-weather roads will be maintained above grade, not
below grade, above grade, and will be open to the traveling public 24
hours a day, seven days a week.
Now, some of the speakers were referring to roads on this map
as being classified as being maintained at or below grade. In fact,
they were pointing to the wrong roads, as I understand it. And I need
clarification from you on that before I take a vote.
The secondary dry season roads are represented by dashed lines
on that chart. The extension of the road on the left is not a dashed
line; is that correct?
MS. MAC'KIE: Part of it is dashed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Which part of it?
MS. MAC'KIE: As we were discussing, the 82nd is the line
where the Miller changes from red to blue, if you can see the red -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, see, we don't have the
colors, so we can't tell what's red or blue.
MS. MAC'KIE: You don't have color?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, there's no color up here.
MS. MAC'KIE: Okay. My finger is the end.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No color on my monitor.
MS. MAC'KIE: This is the end of the primary roads. This is
where the degradation of the roads will occur in this area.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And -- wait a minute. On the
record we said if they were above grade they were going to be
maintained above grade, and if they're currently below grade, they'll
be maintained below grade. Is that not what we heard? MS. MAC'KIE: I'm going to get--
MR. GRAHAM: Again, Hank Graham, Division of Forestry.
Page 126
September 24, 2003
In the agreement I'm not sure if it references dashed roads --
MR. MUDD: It does. Hang on, I'm pulling the sheet out.
MR. GRAHAM: Okay, everything dashed is secondary roads.
On the other map it was blue. I guess in the MOU we're using a
slightly different map, solid lines and dashes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I apologize, the gentleman
was absolutely correct. The map that was shown up here was
misleading.
MR. GRAHAM: It was -- yeah, it was different than what was
in the MOU, correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right, thank you very
much.
I'm not too concerned about the gate, north or south. I think we
can work together and get the gate in the right place.
So if I thought that this was going to deprive people of the
ability to get to their residences, then I wouldn't vote for it. I'm not
convinced that it will.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anything else? Commissioner
Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just to bring me up to speed here,
the gate that Commissioner Coyle was talking about, is that the gate
on Everglades Boulevard?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And that's the gate that
we're trying to get the key for; is that correct?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, understand.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
Any further discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by
Aye.
Page 127
September 24, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: For the record, Commissioner
Coletta dissented on the vote.
Any further business?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We are 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 #16Al - Moved to Item # 1 ON
Item #16A2
SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT
BOARD CASE NO_ 2003-013 AND 2002-01 8
Item #16A3
BOARD OF COl JNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTING AS THE
COMMI JNITY REDEVEI,OPMENT AGENCY_ CONTINUED
AND INCREASED FUNDING OF THE SITE IMPROVEMENT
GRANT AND IMPACT FEE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAMS
AS RECOMMENDED BY THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY
TRIANGLE LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD;
APPROVE THE ATTACHED BUDGET AMENDMENT
REQUEST FOR THE TWO GRANT PROGRAMS; COUNTY
ATTORNEY AND STAFF TO DRAFT ANY NECESSARY
AGREEMENTS, ORDINANCE, RESOLUTION LANGUAGE, OR
Page 128
September 24, 2003
GRANT APPI,ICATION CHANGES
Item #16A4
NEW TOURISM INITIATIVES WITH A FINDING THAT THEY
ARE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST BY PROMOTING TOURISM
IN COLLIER COUNTY AND TO AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF
ALL EXPENSES RELATED TO THOSE INITIATIVES-
SOCIETY OF AMERICAN TRAVEL WRITERS, FRANKLIN
TEMPLETON SHOOTOUT, EQUINOX DOCUMENTARIES AND
MI JSEI IM COAI,ITION BROCHI IRFJ
Item # 16A5
RESOLUTION 2003-319 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY (PUBLIC), DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "CREEKSIDE
FIOl IIJF, VARD WF, ST"
Item #16A6
RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF "VERONAWALK PHASE lA",
AND APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SF, CI IRITY - WITH STIPI IIJATIONS
Item # 16A7
RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF "K.A. WALLACE
SI JFIDIVISION" - WITH STIPI JI,ATIONS
Page 129
Item #16A8
September 24, 2003
RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF "LENAMAE COMMERCE
P ARK" - WITH STIPI II,ATIONS
Item #16A9
RESOLUTION 2003-320 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY (PUBLIC), DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "CREEKSIDE
COMMFRCFi PAR K WEST - l J-NIT TWO"
Item #16Al0
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF COLLIER
COUNTY (EDC) FOR CONTINUATION OF THE ECONOMIC
DIVERSIFICATION PROGRAM AND PROVIDE A
CONTRIBUTION TO THE EDC OF UP TO $400,000 FOR
FISCAIJ YEAR 2004
Item #16Al 1
AMENDMENT TO EXTEND THE EXPIRATION DATE OF THE
TOURISM AGREEMENTS WITH KELLY SWAFFORD AND
ROY (KSR) AND TO FIND THAT THEY ARE IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST BY PROMOTING TOURISM IN COLLIER COUNTY
AND TO AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF ALL EXPENSES
RELATED TO THOSE AGREEMENTS- CURRENT
EXPIRATION DATE_ SEPTEMlqER 30. 2003
Item #16A12
Page 130
September 24, 2003
SUBMISSION OF THE 2004 COLLIER COUNTY CONTINUUM
OF CARE HOMELESS CHALLENGE GRANT APPLICATION
TO THE FLORIDA STATE OFFICE ON HOMELESSNESS ON
SEPTEMBER 9, 2003, AND INFORMING THE BOARD THAT
THE COUNTY MANAGER SIGNED THE APPLICATION
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD DUE TO THE
DATE OF THE GRANT DEADI,INE
Item # 16A 13 - Deleted
Item #16A14
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A $6,845 AGREEMENT (OF WHICH
$3,200 WILL BE REIMBURSABLE) WITH THE U.S. FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE TO FUND WETLAND PLANTINGS AND
AN EDI~CATIONAIJ SIGN IN I,AKE AVAI,ON
Item #16A15
RATIFY A TOURISM AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF
NAPLES FOR THE MONITORING OF DOCTOR'S PASS,
PROJECT 90537; IN THE AMOIJNT OF $10.580
Item #16Al 6
RATIFY A TOURISM AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF
NAPLES FOR T-GROIN MONITORING, PROJECT 90539, IN
THE AMOI JNT OF $69~ 176
Item #16A17
BOARD OF COl JNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTING AS THE
COMMI JNITY RFDF, VEIJOPMENT AGENCY ALLOCATION
OF $25,000 FROM FUND 187 FOR THE PURCHASE AND
Page 131
September 24, 2003
INSTALLATION OF STREET LIGHTS ALONG DAVIS
BOULEVARD IN THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE
RFDEVEIJOPMF, NT DISTRICT
Item #16A18
OFFSITE REMOVAL OF FILL NOT TO EXCEED 10,000 CUBIC
YARDS FROM THE EXISTING SITE KNOWN AS THE
MARETE EXCAVATION, BOUNDED ON THE EAST AND
SOUTH SIDES BY VACANT LAND ZONED AGRICULTURAL
AND ON THE NORTH END WEST SIDES BY OCCUPIED LAND
ZONED AGRICULTURAL ON THE CONDITION THAT ALL
THE FILL REMOVED MUST GO TO THE HABITAT FOR
HIIMANITY SITE KNOWN AS CHARIJEE ESTATES
Item #16B 1
BID #03-3558, LELY GOLF ESTATES MSTU ROADWAY
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF $42,495.30
TO GREF, N HERON I,ANDSCAPES_ [NC
Item # 16B2
TERMINATE PRIMARY VENDOR, HINES LANDSCAPING,
UNDER CONTRACT #03-3491 -"RETENTION POND
MOWING" AND AWARD REMAINDER TERM OF THE
CONTRACT TO SECONDARY VENDOR, SOUTHERN
SERVICES - IN THE AMOUNT OF $568.00/MONTH FOR AN
EIGHT MONTH TOTAI, OF $4:544.00
Item #16B3
ADOPT-A-ROAD PROGRAM AGREEMENTS - IN THE
APPROXIMATE AMOIJNT OF $10:000.00
Page 132
Item #16B4
September 24, 2003
GRANT OF A PERPETUAL, NON-EXCLUSIVE DRAINAGE
EASEMENT AND ACCEPT A GRANT OF A PERPETUAL, NON-
EXCLUSIVE ACCESS EASEMENT TO PROVIDE FOR ACCESS
AND REGULAR MAINTENANCE BY COUNTY STAFF TO ONE
OF THE CANALS IN THE ROCK CREEK BASIN- LOCATED
IN AVION WOODS (AR 2073)
Item #16B5
THE SUPPLEMENT FOR THE TRIP AND EQUIPMENT GRANT
WITH THE FLORIDA COMMISSION FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED (CTD)
Item #16B6
DEVELOPER AGREEMENT WITH COLLIER LAND
DEVELOPMENT, INC. FOR PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE
OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FUTURE LELY CANAL
STORM WATER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT SUBJECT TO
DEVELOPER COMPLYING WITH ALL CONDITIONS OF THE
AGREEMENT IMPOSED BY THE COUNTY- WITH
STIPI H,ATIONS
Item # 16B7
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO SHIFT FUNDING FROM IMPACT
FEES TO GAS TAX FOR GOODLETTE FRANK ROAD
PRO.IF, CT (60134)
Item # 16B8
Page 133
September 24, 2003
LANDSCAPE, IRRIGATION, AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AMONG COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
WILLIAM T. HIGGS, AND WHITE LAKE COMMONS
ASSOCIATION, INC. FOR THE BEAUTIFICATION OF WHITE
LAKE CORPORATE PARK ADJACENT TO WHITE LAKE
BOULEVARD- TO BE FUNDED BY WILLIAM T. HIGGS AND
WHITE I~AKE COMMONS ASSOCIATION. lNC.
Item # 16B9
WORK ORDER FOR $966,820 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION SERVICES BY KCCS FOR
THE GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY PHASE II PROJECT,
LIVINGSTON ROAD TO SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD,
PROJECT NO'S. 60027A AND 60027B, RFP NO. 00-3184 -
WORK ORDER # KCS-FT-03-02
Item # 16C 1
NON-DISTURBANCE AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA POWER
AND LIGHT COMPANY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE
RAW WATER BOOSTER STATION IN THE TAMIAMI
WELLFIELD- 641 7TM STREET SOUTHWEST IN GOLDEN
GATE ESTATES
Item # 16C2
CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH THE SOUTH FLORIDA
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TO CONTINUE
PARTICIPATING IN SURFACE WATER QUALITY
MONITORING OF BIG CYPRESS BASIN IN THE AMOUNT OF
$300,000 - AGREEMENT #ML040284, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1
2003
Page 134
Item #16C3
September 24, 2003
BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM
MANDATORY TRASH COLLECTION FUND (473) RESERVES
FOR PAYMENT TO HAULERS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL
MANDATORY TRASH COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
PROGRAM. TOTAL FUNDS NEEDED FROM RESERVES ARE
$76,000 - IMMOKAI,EE SERVICE AREA
Item # 16C4
AWARD BID #03-3519 AND APPROVE BUDGET
AMENDMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF TWO SKID STEER
LOADERS FOR THE RECYCLING CENTERS TO NORTRAX
EQIHPMENT FOR THE TOTAl. AMOI JNT OF $50,504
Item #16C5
WORK ORDER CDM-FT-03-02 FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
TO ADD ONE NEW PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY WELL TO THE
TAMIAMI WELLFIELD IN THE AMOUNT OF $113,893,
PROJECT 70158 - TO CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE, INC.,
CONTRACT #00-311 9
Item # 16C6 - Withdrawn
AWARD A CONTRACT TO SOUTHWEST UTILITY SYSTEMS,
INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE VANDERBILT BEACH
ROAD RECLAIMED WATER MAIN, BID 03-3529, PROJECT
74034, IN THE AMOIJNT OF $845,415
Item # 16C7
Page 135
September 24, 2003
WORK ORDER CDM-FT-01-02 FOR UTILITY ENGINEERING
SERVICES RELATED TO RESOLVING CLAIMS ON THE
GOLDEN GATE WELLFIELD RELIABILITY CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $36,000, PROJECT 70066-
TO CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE, INC., AMENDMENT #3,
CONTR ACT #00-3119
Item #16C8
WORK ORDER #VL-02-10 WITH VICTOR J. LATAVISH
ARCHITECT, PA, IN THE AMOUNT OF $89,500 FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH
RENOVATIONS FOR THE PUBLIC UTILITIES OPERATIONS
CENTFR~ PROJFJCT NI IMBERS 70059 AND 73072
Item #16C9
AMENDMENT 1 TO WORK ORDER HM-FT-02-02-A FOR
ENGINEERING SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE
WESTERN WASTEWATER INTERCONNECT, PHASE II,
PROJECT 73076, IN THE AMOUNT OF $65,480- TO HOLE
MONTES_ INC_
Item # 16C 10
BUDGET AMENDMENTS RECOGNIZING POSITIVE CARRY
FORWARD OF A $60,414 VARIANCE IN THE POLLUTION
CLEAN-UP AND RESTORATION FUND (108) AND
TRANSFERRING $60,414 TO WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
FIJND (114/
Item #16C 11
Page 136
September 24, 2003
PURCHASE ORDER 1N THE AMOUNT OF $131,000 AND THE
REQUIRED BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR ANGLE BREWER
AND ASSOCIATES (ABA), GRANT ADVISOR, FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INVOLVING THE
PROCUREMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE STATE
REVOLVING FUND (SRF) LOAN PROCUREMENT AND
ASSOCIATED TASKS
Item #16C12
AWARD BID NO. 03-3532, REINFORCEMENT OF DRIVEWAYS
CONTRACT TO NEUBERT CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC.
AND NR CONTRACTORS, INC. ESTIMATED VALUE OF
$900,000 FROM THE MANDATORY TRASH COLLECTION
FUNDS - FOR THE RESIDENTIAL TRASH COLLECTION &
DISPOSAIJ PROGRAM
Item #16C13
CONTRACT NO. GC623 AMENDMENT NO. 1 WITH THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION (FDEP) FOR CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
AND REMEDIATION SERVICES FOR THE CLEAN-UP OF
PETROLEUM CONTAMINATED SITES THROUGHOUT
COLLIER COUNTY- UP TO THE AMOUNT OF $201,256.23 IN
FDEP RF, IMFII IRSF, MF, NTS
Item # 16C 14
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $100,000 TO
FUND UNANTICIPATED EXPENSES IN THE NORTH COUNTY
REGIONAl. WATER TREATMF, NT PI.ANT COST CENTF, R
Page 137
Item # 16C 15
September 24, 2003
ACCEPT THE FY 03/04 WASTE TIRE GRANT OFFER IN THE
AMOUNT OF $31,195 AND AUTHORIZE THE SOLID WASTE
DIRECTOR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT- WITH THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 2003 TO
SEPTF, MFIER 30_ 2004
Item # 16C 16
REJECT BID NO. 03-3524 FOR PUMP STATION 107
IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT 73945 - BY HASKINS, INC., BID
AMOI INT $450~000.00
Item # 16C 17
RESOLUTION 2003-321 SETTING LANDFILL TIPPING FEES,
RECYCLING CENTER FEES, RESIDENTIAL ANNUAL
ASSESSMENTS AND COMMERCIAL WASTE COLLECTION
FEES FOR FY 2003/2004. TOTAL FEES BUDGETED TO BE
COLLECTED FROM RATES APPROVED WITH THIS
RESOLUTION ARE INCLUDED IN THE FY 2003/2004
BUDGETS FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL (FUND 470) AND
MANDATORY TRASH COIJ.ECTION (FI IND 473)
Item # 16C 18
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO REALLOCATE FUNDS BETWEEN
OBJECT CODES FOR THE GOODLAND WATER PUMPING
STATION IIPGRADES; PROJECT, IN THF. AMOI JNT OF $70~000
Item #16C19
Page 138
September 24, 2003
WAIVE THE COUNTY'S PURCHASING POLICY RETAINAGE
RELEASE/REDUCTION CRITERIA BY REDUCING
RETAINAGE FROM 10% TO 0% FOR A COMPONENT OF THE
SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT,
PROJECT 70054- WITH UNITED ENGINEERING
CORPORATION
Item # 16C20
RESOLUTION 2003-322 AND CWS 2003-03 AUTHORIZING
THE ACQUISITION BY GIFT OR PURCHASE OF TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS FOR THE SANTA BARBARA
SEWER FORCE MAIN INTERCONNECT BETWEEN THE
NORTH AND SOUTH WASTEWATER SERVICE AREAS,
PROJECT 731327 AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $55~000
Item #16C21
A REPAIR/MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH PEACOCK
COURT (SUBDIVISION) FOR A WASTEWATER FORCE MAIN
IN THE COl JNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY
Item # 16C22
PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF TWO REPLACEMENT
HOODS IN THE INORGANIC LABORATORY IN THE
A MOI JNT OF $22~304
Item #16C23
TRANSFER CAPITAL PROJECT APPROPRIATIONS FROM AN
OPERATING ACCOUNT IN THE MANDATORY TRASH
COLLECTION FUND (473) AND APPROVE THE CREATION OF
A CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND FOR SOLID WASTE CAPITAL
Page 139
September 24, 2003
PROJECTS. TRANSFER APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENSES
OF $200,000 IN THE FY 2002-03 BUDGET AND AN
APPROPRIATION OF $200,000 IN THE FY 2003/04 BUDGET-
FOR THE REINFORCEMENT OF DRIVEWAYS FOR THE
RF. SIDENTIAIJ TRASH COIJ.F. CTION & DISPOSAI~ PROGRAM
Item # 16D 1
AGREEMENT RENEWAL FOR JOINT USE OF FACILITIES
WITH ST. JOHN NEUMANN HIGH SCHOOL - SCHOOL TO
USE THE GOLDEN GATE AQUATIC COMPLEX AT
SCHEDULED DATES/TIMES AND THE COUNTY TO USE THE
SCHOOL GYM DURING THE SUMMER, FOR A ONE YEAR
PF. RIOD
Item # 16D2
A SUCCESSOR AGREEMENT TO BID #99-3024
"PRESCRIPTION DRUGS FOR SOCIAL SERVICES"-
AGRF. F. MFJNT TO RF. MAIN 1N PIJACFJ 11NTIIJ JANI IARY 2004
Item #16D3
AWARD OF BID #03-3565 TO FLORIDA COAST EQUIPMENT
FOR PURCHASE OF AN ARTICULATED WHEEL LOADER IN
THE AMOIINT OF $45,947.73
Item #16D4
AMENDMENT TO A LIMITED USE LICENSE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND
THE NAPLES JUNIOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, INC.,
ALLOWING FOR A NEW YEAR'S EVE EVENT AND
FIREWORKS DISPLAY TO REPLACE THIS YEAR'S
Page 140
September 24, 2003
CANCELLED FOURTH OF JULY EVENT- COUNTY TO MAKE
A $25,000.00 REIMBURSEMENT CONTRIBUTION TOWARD
THE FIREWORKS DISPLAY TO BE HELD ON NEW YEAR'S
F, VF,, FROM 9PM TO 10:30PM
Item #16D5
ACCEPTANCE OF LIBRARY LONG RANGE PLAN,
INCLUDING THE CURRENT YEAR ACTION PLAN AND
TECHNOLOGY PLAN, AND APPROVAL OF LIBRARY STATE
AID APPI.ICATION. (FY04 GRANT REVENIIF, OF $350~000.)
Item #16D6
AGREEMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 FUNDING
CONTRIBUTION TO THE DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL
HEALTH CENTER, INC. AT A COST OF $952,000- FOR
MENTAI. HEAIJTH AND SI IFISTANCE AFIIISF, PROGRAMS
Item #16D7
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES FUND 490 TRANSFERRING BUDGETED FUNDS
TOTAI.ING $1R2~000
Item # 16E 1
AWARD CONTRACT RFP 03-3476 FOR "EMINENT DOMAIN
LEGAL SERVICES" FOR FIXEL, MCGUIRE & WILLIS; GRAY,
HARRIS & ROBINSON, P.A.; AND BROAD AND CASSEL-
PAYMENT FOR EACH WORK ORDER WILL COME FROM
INDIVIDI IAIJ 1 ~SF.R DEPARTMFiNT
Page 141
Item #16E2
September 24, 2003
THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY, CASUALTY AND
WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RELATED
SERVICES FOR FY 2004 - AS OUTLINED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SI JMMARY
Item #16E3
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO UTILIZE STATE CONTRACT AND
GSA SCHEDULE 70 PRIC1NG FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HARDWARE AND
SOFTWARE - IN EXCESS OF $25,000.00 FOR A PERIOD OF
THREE YEARS AS NEEDFD
Item #16E4- Moved to Item #1 OM
Item #16E5
SELECTION COMMITTEE RANKING OF FIRMS FOR
CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS FOR RFP 03-3548,
"CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR DEVELOPING A LAND AND
LAND RIGHTS GIS DATABASE."- STAFF TO BEGIN
CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH JONES EDMUNDS &
ASSOCIATES. INC.
Item #16E6
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO APPROPRIATE BUILDING
MAINTENANCE SPECIAL SERVICE REVENUES TOTALING
$60,900 FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF OPERATING EXPENSES
1N FISCAIJ YEAR 2003
Page 142
Item #16E7
September 24, 2003
RESOLUTION 2003-323 APPROVING THE 2004 FISCAL YEAR '
PAY AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN AND PROVIDING FOR A
GENERAIJ WAGE ADJI ISTMF. NT AND MERIT INCREASE
Item #16E8
AMENDMENT #2, CONTRACT #00-3173, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$757,110 FOR THE DESIGN OF A PARKING DECK (P2) TO
SPILLIS CANDELA DMJM. THE PARKING DECK WILL BE (5)
STORIES CONTAINING 1,130 PARKING SPACES - LOCATED
IN THE EXISTING PARKING AREA EAST OF THE
COl IRTHOI JSE
Item # 16F 1
RECOGNIZE AND APPROPRIATE ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE
CONTROL DISTRICT PROTECTIVE INSPECTION FEE
REVENUE IN THE AMOUNT OF $19,000 BY APPROVING THE
NF. CESSARY lql IDGET AMENDMENT
Item # 16F2
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND
DR. MARTA U. COBURN, M.D., FLORIDA DISTRICT TWENTY
MEDICAL EXAMINER DBA DISTRICT TWENTY MEDICAL
EXAMINER, INC. TO PROVIDE MEDICAL EXAMINER
SERVICES FOR FISCAIJ YF. AR ~004 AT A COST OF $780.700
Item # 16F3
RESOLUTION 2003-324 AUTHORIZING COLLIER COUNTY TO
ACCEPT $105,806 FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
Page 143
September 24, 2003
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT AND ACCEPT AGREEMENT
#04FIG-04-09-21-01-011 WITH SAMF.
Item # 16F4
BUDGET AMENDMENT REPORT- BA #03-565 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $17,600 FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT THE
IMMOKALEE AIRPORT; AND BA #03-570 IN THE AMOUNT
OF $18,000 TO COVER PERSONAL SERVICES FOR THE
REMAINDER OF FY-03
Item # 16G 1
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO REALLOCATE AMOUNTS
AMONG APPROPRIATION CATEGORIES IN THE AIRPORT
Al ;THORITY FI JND (495)
Item #16H1
COMMISSIONER FIALA REQUEST FOR APPROVAL FOR
PAYMENT TO ATTEND LEADERSHIP COLLIER KICK OFF IN
HONOR OF THE CLASS OF 2004- TO BE HELD AT NAPLES
BEACH HOTEL AND GOLF CLUB ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2003,
FOR A COST OF $1 5_00
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER HALAS' REQUEST FOR APPROVAL FOR
PAYMENT TO ATTEND NAACP FREEDOM FUND BANQUET,
SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$55.00 TO gE HFJI.D ON OCTOFtFJR 25.2003
Page 144
Item # 16H3
September 24, 2003
COMMISSIONER HENNING REQUEST FOR APPROVAL FOR
PAYMENT TO ATTEND THE UNITED WAY OF COLLIER
COUNTY CAMPAIGN 2003 KICK-OFF- TO BE HELD AT THE
NAPLES BEACH HOTEL & GOLF CLUB ON OCTOBER 1, 2003,
AT A COST OF $20.00
Item # 16I 1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE- FILED AND/OR
REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented
by the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the
various departments as indicated:
Page 145
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
September 23, 2003
FOR BOARD ACTION:
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FII.E FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Clerk of Courts: Submitted for public record, pursuant to Florida Statutes,
Chapter 136.06(1), the disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners for
the period:
1. Disbursements for July 12, 2003 through July 18, 2003.
2. Disbursements for July 19, 2003 through July 25, 2003.
3. Disbursements for July 26, 2003 through August 1, 2003.
Districts: '
Fiddlers Creek Community Development - Minutes of Meeting for May
28, 2003.
o
.Kev Marco Community Development District - Minutes of Meeting for
May 1, 2003; Proposed Budget for FY 2003.
Port of the Islands Community Improvement District - Minutes of
Meeting for June 20, 2003.
o
Mediterra South Community Development District - Proposed Budget for
FY 2004; District Map; Minutes of Meeting for June 25, 2003; Public
Facilities Report; Description of Outstanding Bonds. Minutes of May 12,
2003; May 28, 2003
C. ..Minutes:
Tourist Development Council - Minutes of February 24, 2003.
.Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Board - Minutes of December
2, 2002.
o
Historical & Archaeological Preservation Board - Agenda for August 20,
2003; Minutes of June 18, 2003.
Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. ,.Agenda for August 19, 2003;
September 16, 2003;,Minutes of July 15, 2003; August 19, 2003.
H:Data/Format
o
o
o
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Collier County Planning Commission - Agenda for August 21, 2003;
September 4, 2003, Minutes of June 19, 2003, July 17, 2003.
..Collier County Airport Authority - Agenda for August 27, 2003.
Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for August 12,
2003; Minutes of June 10, 2003.
Lely Golf Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for August 14,
2003; Minutes of July 17, 2003.
parks and Recreation Advisory Board - Agenda for August 20th, 2003;
Minutes of June 25, 2003.
Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board - Agenda for Special
Meeting on August 14, 2003 and Agenda for a Joint Meeting with the
Black Affairs Advisory Board on August 28, 2003.
Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board - Agenda for August
27, 2003; Special Meeting for September 3, 2003.
Productivity Committee Meeting Minutes - Minutes for July 16, 2003.
Development Services Advisory Committcc- Agenda for September 3,
2003; Minutes of August 6, 2003.
Collier County Citizens Corps Advisory Board -Minutes of May 22, 2003,
June 19, 2003, Agenda for June 19, 2003.
Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committe~. - Agenda and
Minutes for June 12, 2003.
Collier County Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council - Minutes
of August 13, 2003.
Pelican Bay Services Division Board - Agenda for September 4, 2003;
Minutes of July 2, 2003; Clam Bay Sub- Committee - Minutes of June 26,
2003; Budget Sub-Committee -Minutes of August 6, 2003.
B_avshore Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Boanl -
Agenda for September 2, 2003.
B~avshore Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda for September 10, 2003;
Minutes of August 13, 2003.
Vanderbilt Beach M.S.T.U. - Agenda for September 4th, 2003; Minutes
of August 7, 2003. -
H:Data/Format
Item #16J 1
September 24, 2003
EARLY RETIREMENT OF PRINCIPAL RELATED TO THE
COLLIER COUNTY AGRICULTURAL FAIR AND EXPOSITION,
1NC. FLORIDA LOCAL GOVERNMENT POOLED
COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN AND THE BUDGET
AMENDMENT REQUIRED FOR PAYMENT - WILL BE PAID
DOWN OCTOBER 7_ 2003
Item # 16J2
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE WIRELESS 911
REVFNI JES IN THE AMOI JNT OF $977000
Item #16J3
ACCEPT A CIVIL TRAFFIC INFRACTION HEARING OFFICER
GRANT-IN-AID OF $9,710 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE STATE
COURT ADMINISTRATOR AND AUTHORIZE CHAIRMAN TO
SIGN THE AMENDMENT
Item # 16J4
BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING FUNDS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $100,000 FROM GENERAL FUND RESERVES TO
THE PAID IN LIEU OF TRANSFER ACCOUNT IN THE
GENERAL FUND- TO PROVIDE UTILITIES FOR THE
SHERIFF'S OFFICE
Item # 16J5
AUTHORIZE THE EXTENSION OF THE TAX ROLL BEFORE
COMPLETION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
HEARINGS PURSUANT TO SECTION 197.323, FLA. STAT.,
Page 146
September 24, 2003
AND TAX COLLECTOR'S REQUEST- FOR THE 2003 TAX
YEAR
Item #16K1
APPROVE THE STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE
TO THE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 127 IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY Y. ELHANON COMBS, ET AL,
GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY PROJECT NO. 60027 -$8,600.00 TO
BE PAID TO RESPONDENT, CONSTANCE M. PINETTE AND
$1_200.00 TO BF, PAID TO PF, TER Ft. TIF, RNAN. ESO.
Item #16K2
APPROVE THE STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE
TO THE FEE SIMPLE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 181 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY Y. BIG CORKSCREW
ISLAND FIRE DISTRICT, ET AL., IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT
#60018 - $8,404.00 TO BE PAID TO RESPONDENT, LEE DAVIS;
$892.00 TO BE PAID TO KENNETH A. JONES, ESQ., AND
$900.00 TO FIE PAID FOR APPRAISAIJ FF, ES
Item # 16K3
APPROVE THE STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE
TO THE FEE SIMPLE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 183 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNJT Iz. LAZARO HERRERA,
ETAL., IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT #60018 - $8,404.00 TO
BE PAID TO RESPONDENTS, LARRY VALENTE AND
CONSIGLIO GIRURASTANTE; $892.00 TO BE PAID TO
KENNETH A. JONES, ESQ., AND $900.00 TO BE PAID FOR
APPRAISAIJ FFJFJS
Page 147
Item # 16K4- Deleted
September 24, 2003
Item # 16K5
APPROVE THE STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENTS RELATIVE
TO THE FEE TAKING OF PARCEL NOS. 195, 197, 198, 201,202,
208, 21 lA, 214 AND 218 FOR THE IMMOKALEE ROAD
PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 60018) - AS OUTLINED IN THE
EXF, CI JTIVE SI IMMARY
Item #16K6
APPROVE THE STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE
TO THE FEE SIMPLE INTEREST ACQUISITION OF PARCEL
185 IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY
MANUEL AL VAREZ, ETAL., (IMMOKALEE PHASE 1 PROJECT,
PROJECT NO. 60018) - $15,504.00 TO BE PAID TO
RESPONDENTS, MANUEL ALVAREZ AND IDAYME SANTOS;
$1,420.32 TO BE PAID TO KENNETH A. JONES, ESQ.; $900.00
FOR APPRAISAl, FEES, AND $700.00 FOR PI,ANNING FEES
Item #16K7
APPROVE THE STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE
TO THE FEE SIMPLE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 186 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. MANUAL AL VAREZ,
ET AL., IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT 360018 - $8,404.00 TO
BE PAID TO RESPONDENTS, FRANK RUFFOLO AND
JEANINE RUFFOLO; $892.00 TO BE PAID TO KENNETH A.
JONES_ EGO__ AND $1,400.00 TO FIE PAID FOR EXPERT FEES
Item # 16K8
Page 148
September 24, 2003
RESOLUTION 2003-325 APPROVING THE 2004 FISCAL YEAR
PAY AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN, A GENERAL WAGE
ADJUSTMENT (COLA) AND MERIT INCREASE, AND THE
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL FOR THE OFFICE OF
THE COl JNTY ATTORNF, Y
Item #16K9- Continued to October 14, 2003
BCC AS EX-OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD OF THE ISLES OF
CAPRI MUNICIPAL RESCUE AND FIRE SERVICES TAXING
DISTRICT AND THE OCHOPEE FIRE DISTRICT ENTER INTO
AMENDED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS WITH
INDF, PF, NDFJNT FIRF, DISTRICTS
Item # 17A
ORDINANCE 2003-45 RE: PUDZ-2001-AR-955, WILLIAM L.
HOOVER, OF HOOVER PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, INC.,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" AGRICULTURAL TO
"PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS
WOLF CREEK PUD FOR A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT FOR A
MAXIMUM OF 591 DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY
LOCATED ALONG WOLF ROAD, APPROXIMATELY ½ MILE
WEST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (C.R. 951) AND 3/8 MILE
NORTH OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD (C.R. 862),
CONSISTING OF 147.69 +/- ACRF, S
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2003-326 RE: SNR-2003-AR-4052, PETER
GOODIN, REPRESENTING OAKES ESTATES ADVISORY,
INC., REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM 16TM
Page 149
September 24, 2003
AVENUE NORTHWEST TO STANDING OAKS LANE, WHICH
STREET IS LOCATED IN UNIT 97 OF THE GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES SI JFIDIVISION
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2003-327 RE: SNR-2003-AR-4053, PETER
GOODIN, REPRESENTING OAKES ESTATES ADVISORY,
INC., REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM 22ND
AVENUE NORTHWEST TO HIDDEN OAKS LANE, WHICH
STREET IS LOCATED IN UNIT 97 OF THE GOLDEN GATE
FiSTATES SI IFIDIVISION
Item #17D
RESOLUTION 2003-328 RE: SNR-2003-AR-4054, PETER
GOODIN, REPRESENTING OAKES ESTATES ADVISORY,
INC., REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM 20TM
AVENUE NORTHWEST TO SPANISH OAKS LANE, WHICH
STREET IS LOCATED IN UNIT 97 OF THE GOLDEN GATES
ESTATES gl II~IDIVISION
Item #17E - Continued Indefinitely
PETITION SNR-2003-AR-4055, PETER GOODIN,
REPRESENTING OAKES ESTATES ADVISORY, INC.,
REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM 12TM
AVENUE NORTHWEST TO BUR OAKS LANE, WHICH
STREET IS LOCATED IN UNIT 96, OF THE GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES SI IFIDIVISION
Page 150
September 24, 2003
Item # 17F
RESOLUTION 2003-329 RE: SNR-2003-AR-4056, PETER
GOODIN, REPRESENTING OAKES ESTATES ADVISORY,
INC., REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM 14TM
AVENUE NORTHWEST TO SHADY OAKS LANE, WHICH
STREET IS LOCATED IN UNIT 96, OF THE GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES SI IFtDIVISION
Item #17G
RESOLUTION 2003-330 RE: SNR-2003-AR-4057, PETER
GOODIN, REPRESENTING OAKES ESTATES ADVISORY,
INC., REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM 18TM
AVENUE NORTHWEST TO GOLDEN OAKS LANE, WHICH
STREET IS LOCATED IN UNIT 97, OF THE GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES SI IFIDIVISION
Item #17H
RESOLUTION 2003-331 RE: SNR-2003-AR-4065, PETER
GOODIN, REPRESENTING OAKES ESTATES ADVISORY,
INC., REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM 24TM
AVENUE NORTHWEST TO AUTUMN OAKS LANE, WHICH
STREET IS LOCATED IN UNIT 97 OF THE GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES SI IFIDIVISION
Item #171
ORDINANCE 2003-46 RE: PETITION PUDZ-03-AR-3860,
RICHARD YOVANOVICH OF GOODLETTE, COLEMAN &
JOHNSON AND WAYNE ARNOLD OF Q. GRADY MINOR AND
Page 151
September 24, 2003
ASSOCIATES, REPRESENTING GATEWAY SHOPPES, LLC,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "RFS-3" RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAMILY AND THE HENDERSON CREEK "PUD"
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO A NEW "PUD" TO BE
KNOWN AS THE ARTESA POINTE PUD ALLOWING 280
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS OF WHICH 100 PERCENT
OF THE UNITS WILL BE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING;
INCORPORATING A 37-ACRE SITE THAT IS INTENDED TO
PERMIT COMMERCIAL USES TOTALING 325,000 SQUARE
FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE FLOOR AREA FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE TAMIAMI TRAIL
(U.S. 41) AND THE EAST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD
(CR-95 )
Item #17J- Moved to Item #8K
Item # 17K
ORDINANCE 2003-47 RE: PUDZ-2003-AR-3151 WAYNE
ARNOLD AND RICHARD YOVANOVICH REPRESENTING
RICHARD SANTERRE REQUESTING. A REZONE FROM C-3
AND RMF-6 TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
KNOWN AS THE MILLER SQUARE PUD. THIS PROJECT
WILL CONSIST OF 19,000 SQUARE FEET OR LESS OF RETAIL
AND OFFICE COMMERCIAL USES, LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF U.S. 41 EAST AND SHADOWLAWN
DRIVE. CONSISTING OF 1.9+/- ACRES
Item # 17L- Moved to Item #7B
Item #17M
Page 152
September 24, 2003
ORDINANCE 2003-48 RE: PUDA-2001-AR-956 THOMAS E.
KILLEN, REPRESENTING NAPLES ELKS LODGE 2010,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM PUD TO PUD FOR THE
RADIO SQUARE PUD, ADDING MEDICAL OFFICE AS A
PERMITTED USE, AMENDING THE LANDSCAPE
REQUIREMENTS, AND PROVIDING FOR SHARED PARKING,
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER
OF RADIO ROAD (CR 856) AND DONNA STREET,
CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATF, IJY 9.4 ACRF~S
Page 153
September 24, 2003
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 8:00 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL ~
TOM HENNING, Chairmafi
ATTEST:.i' :.::
DWIG~F ;E.i'iJROUK, CLERK
·
,st-~s.~o' ~t~,:s- (\
slgnat~ur~ onl.~;':' :'("
These m~Irdtes ap, l>r'oved by the Board on
as presented
or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY KAREN WHITE AND CHERIE
NOTTINGHAM
Page 154