BCC Minutes 10/28/2003 ROctober 28, 2003
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, October 28, 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 9:02 a.m. in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Tom Henning
Jim Coletta
Fred Coyle
Donna Fiala
Frank Halas
ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Administrator
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
October 28, 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
1
October 28, 2003
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
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
A. Reverend Craig Nelson, East Naples United Methodist Church
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
Ae
Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
B. September 18, 2003 - BCC Budget Hearings
C. September 23, 2003 - BCC Regular Meeting
D. September 24, 2003 - BCC Regular Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS
Twenty-Year Attendee:
2
October 28, 2003
e
A. Joanne Soprano, Library
PROCLAMATIONS
Ae
Proclamation to designate November as National Epilepsy Awareness
Month. To be mailed upon presentation.
Be
Proclamation to designate the month of November 2003 as Collier County
Adoption Month. To be accepted by Debbie Allen and Danielle Stewart.
Ce
Proclamation to recognize the Florida Fire School and those dedicated
individuals and agencies for their efforts in providing this beneficial training.
To be accepted by Warren Heltsley and Doug Doyer.
DJ
Proclamation to designate Sunday, November 16, 2003 as Lake Trafford
Restoration Awareness Day. To be accepted by Nicole Ryan,
Environmental Policy Manager for the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
Proclamation to designate November 2003 as United Way of Collier County
Agency Awareness Month. To be accepted by Dan Rodriguez, Collier
County Facilities Manager and member of the Collier County United Way
Branch.
Fe
Proclamation to designate October 28, 2003 as Collier County Wastewater
Operations Challenge Day. To be accepted by members of the Royal Flush
Team which include Joseph Bianchi, William Combs, David Fitts and Dale
Waller.
PRESENTATIONS
A. Recommendation to recognize Sharon Gilbert, Operations Coordinator,
Transportation Division as Employee o£ the Month £or October 2003.
PUBLIC PETITIONS
3
October 28, 2003
Public Petition request by Mr. William L. McDaniel, Jr. to discuss hours of
operation for the mining industry in Collier County.
Public Petition request by Mr. Bob Krasowski to discuss a workshop on the
solid waste management issue.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ae
This item continued from the September 23, 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 and Development Inc., representing
Barton and Wendy McIntyre and Joseph MagDalener, requesting changes to
the existing Nicaea Academy PUD Zoning. The proposed changes to the
PUD document and master plan will eliminate the uses of private school and
assisted living facility and allow for a minimum 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.
This item was continued from the September 23, 2003 BCC Meeting
and is further continued to the December 16, 2003 BCC Meeting. CU-
02-AR-2354 William Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning and Development
Inc., representing Pastor Roy Shuck of Faith Community Church, requesting
Conditional Use 3 and 4 of"E" Estates to add a child care and pre-school to
the existing Faith Community Church, located at 6455 22nd Avenue NW,
further described as part of Tracts 15 and 16, Golden Gate Estates Unit 97.
Ce
This item being continued to the November 18, 2003 BCC Meeting.
Approve an ordinance to be known as the Advanced Broadband
Infrastructure Investment Ordinance, establishing an advanced broadband
infrastructure investment program available to eligible businesses to
4
October 28, 2003
encourage private sector investment in advanced broadband infrastructure.
This item being continued to the November 18, 2003 BCC Meeting.
Approve an ordinance to be known as the Job Creation Investment
Ordinance; approve an associated budget amendment for $500,000; establish
the job creation investment program available to eligible businesses to
mitigate the economic effects of increased development fees and relocation
or expansion costs.
Ee
This item being continued to the November 18, 2003 BCC Meeting.
Approve an ordinance to be known as the Fee Payment Assistance
Ordinance; approve an associated budget amendment for $1,350,000;
establish a fee payment assistance program available to eligible businesses
to mitigate the economic effects of increased impact fee rates.
This item being continued to the November 18, 2003 BCC Meeting.
Approve an ordinance to be known as the Property Tax Stimulus Ordinance;
establish a property tax stimulus program available to eligible businesses to
mitigate the economic effects of increased relocation and expansion costs.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Collier County Code Enforcement Board.
Appointment of member to the Community Character/Smart Growth
Advisory Committee.
This item being continued to the November 18~ 2003 BCC Meeting.
Impact fee credits for existing building or structures. (Commissioner
Henning)
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
Approve an agreement with the Gulf Coast Skimmers to terminate the lease
agreement at Sugden Regional Park. (John Dunnuck, Administrator, Public
5
October 28, 2003
Be
CJ
me
Services)
Present findings and recommendations concerning the negotiations with
Brightstar Environmental (Florida), LLC pursuant to RFP #02-3316; MSW
Processing and Gasification Facility and recommendations for further
actions. (Jim DeLony, Administrator, Public Utilities)
Item to be heard at 12:00 noon. Recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners and the County's Labor Negotiation Committee hold
a Strategy Session for Collective Bargaining with the Southwest Florida
Professional Firefighters and Paramedics, IAFF Local 1826, in the Shade
pursuant to Section 477.605 (1) Fla. Stat. (John Dunnuck, Administrator,
Public Services)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners determine
whether Collier County Emergency Medical Services shall continue to
provide out-of-county transports for Naples Community Hospital Healthcare
System Facilities and ratification of prior letter agreement. (John Dunnuck,
Administrator, Public Services)
Recommendation to approve Commercial Excavation Permit No. 59.868
"Stewart Earth Mining", located in Section 18 and 19, Township 46 south,
Range 29 east; bonded on the north and west by existing citrus groves, on
the south by vacant land and existing citrus groves, and on the east by vacant
land and a farm building. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community
Development)
Request Board approval to accept a grant of $200,000 under the Florida
Economic Development Transportation Fund Program; approve an
agreement between the Florida Office of Trade, Tourism and Economic
Development and Collier County; approve a budget amendment in the
amount of $200,000; approve a resolution assuming future road
maintenance; and approve a road maintenance agreement between the
County and the North Naples Golf Range, Inc. (Joseph K. Schmitt,
Administrator, Community Development)
6
October 28, 2003
Ge
He
Recommendation that the Board adopt a resolution of No Objection to the
enactment of a bill by the Florida Legislature creating an independent
Special District under Chapter 189, Florida Statutes, to be known as the Big
Cypress Stewardship District. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator,
Community Development)
Recommendation that the Board adopt a resolution of No Objection to the
enactment of a bill by the Florida Legislature creating an independent
Special District under Chapter 189, Florida Statutes, to be known as the Ave
Maria Stewardship Community District. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator,
Community Development)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
Ae
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
settlement of claims against individual County Commissioners and former
County Commissioners in the case ofAquaport v. Collier County, Case No.
2:01-CV-341-FTM-29DNF, the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, now pending in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit as Case No. 03-13133-BB.
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
15.
Ae
Recommendation from the County's Airport Authority that the Board affirm
the attached employment agreement between the Authority and Eugene
Schmidt, Executive Director, and authorize a related budget amendment.
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
7
October 28, 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.
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Request to grant final approval of the roadway (private), drainage,
water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Ibis Cove, Phase
One". The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately
maintained, the water and sewer improvements will be maintained by
Collier County.
Request to grant final approval of the roadway (private), drainage,
water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Naples Lakes
Shopping Center". The roadway and drainage improvements will be
privately maintained, the water and sewer improvements will be
maintained by Collier County.
Request to grant final approval of the roadway (private), drainage,
water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Links at the
Strand". The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately
maintained, the water and sewer improvements will be maintained by
Collier County.
Request to grant final approval of the roadway (private), drainage,
water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Naples Gateway,
Phase 2". The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately
maintained, the water and sewer improvements will be maintained by
Collier County.
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of"Arielle".
8
October 28, 2003
6)
7)
8)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "North Naples
Research and Technology Park", and approval of the Standard Form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
Final acceptance of water utility facilities for Jasmine Pointe.
Final acceptance of water utility facilities for Spoonbill Cove at
Carlton Lakes.
9)
Final acceptance of water utility facilities for Bridgewater Bay
Clubhouse.
10)
Final acceptance of water utility facilities for Bridgewater Bay, Phase
One.
11)
Petition CARNY-2003-AR-4798, Reverend Joseph Spinelli, OSA, St.
Elizabeth Seton Church requesting permit to conduct a carnival from
November 5 through November 9, 2003, on the church property
located at 2760 52nd Terrace SW, Golden Gate City.
12)
13)
14)
15)
Request to grant final approval of the roadway (private), drainage,
water and sewer improvements for the final plat of"Troon Lakes" the
roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained, the
water and sewer improvements will be maintained by Collier County.
Recommendation to award RFP #03-3537, "Tourist Development
Council Marketing Services" (in the estimated annual amount of
$820,000).
Recommendation to award RFP #03-3540, Tourist Development
Council Fulfillment Services (in the estimated annual amount of
$65,000).
Recommendation to approve Commercial Excavation Permit No.
59.583-1 -AR-3960 "Marete Commercial Excavation", located in
9
October 28, 2003
Be
Section 7, Township 51 south, Range 26 east; bounded on the east and
south by vacant land zoned agricultural, on the west and north by
occupied land zoned agricultural.
16)
Recommendation to award RFP #03-3538, "Tourist Development
Council Research Services" (in the estimated annual amount of
$75,000).
I7)
Approve a Tourist Development Category "A" Beach
Renourishment/Maintenance Grant Applications and budget
amendments for Fiscal Year 2003/2004 in the amount of $316,900.
i8)
Proposed amendment to Resolution 2003-340 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.
19)
Board waive recovery of relocation expenses of $4,855.06, resulting
from the negotiated resignation of Ms. Margaret Wuerstle as Planning
Services Director, releasing any right the County may have in
reclaiming said relocation expenses, finding that payment of
relocation expenses, in this case, are in the best interest of the County.
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
2)
Amend Resolution No. 2001-56, which established an Ad Hoc
Advisory Committee to provide input and guidance in the aesthetic
appearance of the 1-75/Golden Gate Parkway Interchange, by
reducing the number of voting members from seven to five, and
reducing the number of non-voting members from three to two.
Approve a budget amendment to carry forward funds to re-open a
purchase order in FY04 that was closed by mistake in FY03 in the
amount of $23,490.
10
October 28, 2003
3)
Approval Bid #03-3561, SR951 at Fiddler's Creek MSTD roadway
grounds maintenance in the amount of $21,143.70 to Green Heron
Landscapes, Inc.
4)
Adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition by gift or purchase of a
fee simple interest in the proposed right-of-way and/or stormwater
retention and treatment pond sites, as well as perpetual, non-exclusive
road right-of-way, drainage and utility easements, and temporary
driveway restoration easements, and temporary construction
easements, which will be required for the construction of roadway,
drainage and utility improvements to Rattlesnake Hammock Road
(CR 864) from Polly Avenue to Collier Boulevard (CR 951). (Capital
Improvement Element No. 77, Project No. 60169). Estimated fiscal
impact: $2,230,000.
5)
Adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition by gift or purchase of a
fee simple interest in the proposed right-of-way and/or stormwater
retention and treatment pond sites, as well as perpetual, non-exclusive
road right-of-way, drainage and utility easements, and temporary
driveway restoration easements, and temporary construction
easements, which will be required for the construction of roadway,
drainage and utility improvements to Collier Boulevard (CR 951)
from Golden Gate Boulevard to Immokalee Road. (Capital
Improvement Element No. 37, Project No. 65061). Estimated fiscal
impact: $4,558,540.
6)
Approve selection committee ranking of firms for contract
negotiations for RFP 03-3559 "Consultant Services for the update of
the Collier County Comprehensive Pathway Plan".
7)
Approve an increase of contingency funds from the current 5% up to
the maximum 10% for the Goodlette Frank Road Improvement
Project, from Pine Ridge Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road, Project No.
60134, Bid No. 02-3424.
11
October 28, 2003
8)
Request the Board approve a resolution implementing certain
procedures and guidelines to standardize Traffic Impact Studies (TIS).
9)
Approve Change Order No. 2 in the amount of$112,117.09 to
Thomas Marine Construction, Inc., for the Lakeland Avenue Bridge
and Roadway Construction Project, from Piper Boulevard to
Immokalee Road, Project No. 66041, Bid No. 03-3492.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1)
Approve a budget amendment for countywide sand search, Project
90527, to fund staff effort in acquiring temporary beach maintenance
easements, in the amount of $100,000.
2)
Approve Work Order MAC-FT-04-01 to McKim and Creed Engineers
for engineering services related to control and telemetry upgrades for
Carica/Vanderbilt/Barefoot pump stations in the amount of $81,000
for Project 70124.
3)
Approve Work Order CAR-FT-04-01 to Carollo Engineers for
engineering services related to Scada and Control Network Upgrades
at the North County Regional Water Treatment Plan in the amount of
$84,850 for Project 70094.
4)
Approve an amendment to the FDEP Beach Erosion Control Program
Project Agreement for reimbursement of up to an additional $353,715.
5)
Approve resolution supporting continued state funding of coastal
projects.
6)
Authorize an interest payment in compliance with the Florida Prompt
Payment Act related to Contract #02-3348 Golden Gate Wellfield
Reliability Improvements, Project 70066, in the amount of $7,397.91.
7)
Award Contracts 03-3427 "Environmental Engineering, Remediation
and Restoration Services for Collier County" (estimated dollar amount
12
October 28, 2003
of contract not to exceed $3,000,000 annually per firm).
8)
Approve two work order amendments, under Contract #01-3271,
fixed term professional engineering services for Coastal Zone
Management Projects, with Coastal Planning and Engineering for
Sand Search Phase 3 and Marine Resources Investigation as part of
the countywide sand search, Project 90527, in the combined reduced
amount of $26,509.
9)
Approve two budget amendments in the total amount of $31,850 and a
work order amendment with Greeley and Hansen LLC under Contract
#00-3119, Fixed Term Professional Utility Engineering Services, for
the updating of the Collier County Utilities Standards in the amount of
$31,849, Project 70202.
10)
Waive the Purchasing Policy VII (F) and authorize staff to modify the
purchase order to Advanced Control Consulting in the amount of
$7,500 for Project 74033.
11)
Approve a new agreement for delivery and reuse of reclaimed water
and terminate the existing agreement between the Collier County
Water-Sewer District and Windstar Club, Inc.
i2)
Award Bid Number 03-3531 for landscape maintenance in the base
cost amount of $89,157 for wells and facilities to Ground Zero
Landscaping Service, Incorporated.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
Approval of additions to agreements between Sirsi Corporation and
Collier County Board of County Commissioners to extend the
contract for intemet access.
2)
Award Work Order #PBS-02-30 in the negotiated amount of $119,730
to Professional Building Systems for the renovation of Tigertail Beach
13
October 28, 2003
Park, Phase II.
3)
Approve an agreement with Stock Development, LLC for the
installation of upgraded sports field lighting at Eagle Lakes
Community Park at no cost to Collier County.
4)
Award Work Order #CT-02-03 in the amount of $130,241 to the
Chris-Tel Company for the renovation of Bayview Park.
5)
Approve a budget amendment recognizing $83,000 in revenue from
the Community Development Block Grant Program for the East
Naples Community Center Senior Center Expansion Project.
6) Approval of amendments to the Collier County Fair Board By-Laws.
7)
Approve a budget amendment in the amount of $64,380.36 to
recognize repayment to the Grant Fund from EMS.
8)
Request by Collier County Domestic Animal Services to approve a
resolution to waive dog and cat license fees for four days during
November's Shelter Appreciation Week.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1)
Approval of Budget Amendment Report - BA #04-013 in the amount
of $14,200 to pay for equipment for fire engine purchased in FY03.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1)
Commissioner Fiala request for approval for payment to attend
SWFRPC 30th Anniversary Celebration.
14
October 28, 2003
Je
2) Commissioner Coletta requests approval for payment to attend
SWFPRC 30th Anniversary Celebration.
3) Commissioner Henning request for approval for payment for expenses
serving a valid public purpose.
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1)
2)
Recommend that the Collier County Commission endorse the United
States Department of Justice/Department of Treasury Federal
Equitable Sharing Annual Certification Report.
That the Board of County Commissioners make a determination of
whether the purchases of goods and services documented in the
Detailed Report of Open Purchase Orders serve a valid public purpose
and authorize the expenditure of County funds to satisfy said
purchases.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
Adopt a resolution to amend Collier County Resolution No. 2000-126
to correct references to the exhibits in that resolution.
17.
2)
Approve the stipulated final judgment relative to the fee simple
acquisition of Parcel 191 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. GJR
of Naples Inc., et al, Case No. 02-2212-CA (Immokalee Road Project
#60018).
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
15
October 28, 2003
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.
Ae
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition
AVPLAT2003-AR3691 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County's and
the Public's interest in the 20 foot wide alley in Block 50, according to the
plat of"Newmarket Subdivision", as recorded in Plat Book 1, Pages 104 and
105, Public Records of Collier County, Florida, located in Section 3,
Township 47 south, Range 29 east.
This item being continued to the November 18, 2003 BCC Meeting.
Adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code
of Laws and Ordinances, as amended by Ordinance No. 2001 - 13, the Collier
County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, 2001-13, as amended, by
establishing a deferral program for the Immokalec Area to reduce thc
economic effects of increased impact fee rates.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
16
October 28, 2003
October 28, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Call the meeting to order of the
Board of Commissioners. Today is October 28th, 2003.
Would you all rise for the invocation by County Manager Jim
Mudd, and follow that, pledge of allegiance.
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, let us pray.
Our Heavenly Father, we ask your blessings on these
proceedings and all who are gathered here. We ask this a special
blessing on this Board of County Commissioners. Guide them in
their deliberations, grant them wisdom and vision to meet the trials of
this day and the days to come.
Bless us now as we undertake the business of Collier County
and its citizens, that our actions will serve the greater good of all
citizens and be acceptable in your sight. Your will be done. Amen.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Items #2A
REGULAR, SUMMARY, AND CONSENT AGENDA-
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, welcome all.
County Attorney David Weigel, do you have any changes,
additions, corrections, deletions to today's agenda?
MR. WEIGEL: Just a note for the record. Mr. Mudd will be
talking about 10(C) in his discussion of agenda --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Weigel, can you pull your mic.
up closer, please.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, I will. Thank you.
Mr. Mudd will be addressing Agenda Item 10(C) relating to a
meeting, a closed session of the Board of County Commissioners
relating to employment rights discussions, and that is pursuant to the
Sunshine Law as a closed session. I expect that the board will have
Page 2
October 28, 2003
such closed session in its conference room chambers, as opposed to
in this facility, this meeting room right here. So I wanted the record
to reflect appropriately where the meeting will be held.
And other than that, no further suggestion for the record.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Manager Jim Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
Agenda changes for the Board of County Commissioners
October 28th, 2003.
Continue Item 8(A) to November 18th, 2003 Board of County
Commissioners meeting. This item continued from the September
23rd, 2003 BCC meeting. It's IDZ-2003-AR-3607, William L.
Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning and Development, Inc.,
representing Barton and Wendy Mclntyre and Joseph MagDalener,
requesting changes to the existing Nicaea Academy PUD zoning.
The proposed change to the PUD document and master plan will
eliminate the uses of private school and existing living facilities and
allow for a minimum of eight -- or 580 -- say again, 580 residential
dwelling units. The property to be considered for the rezone is
located on the east side of Collier Boulevard, just south of Crystal
Lake PUD RV Park, in Section 26, Township 48 south, Range 26
east, Collier County, Florida. This property consists of 119 plus
acres, and it's at the petitioner's request.
The next item, add Item 9(E), and that's the Fleischman property
discussion. And that's at Commissioner Coyle's request. And the
read-ahead material from Conservation Collier and whatever I could
dig up yesterday, we sent to all the board members via e-mail, so you
should have those particular items to help you as you discuss this
particular issue.
Next item: Continue Item 10(A) to November 18th, 2003 BCC
meeting. Approve an agreement with the Gulf Coast Skimmers to
terminate the lease agreement at Sugden Regional Park.
I received a phone call this morning at 8:30 from Mr. Lennox,
Page 3
October 28, 2003
who represents Mr. Gursoy, and asked me to pull this particular item.
It says staff's request, because I basically related to the secretary,
said, pull it. But that's how the proceedings happened this morning at
8:30. And this item got continued until 18 November.
Next item, continue Item 16(A)(3) to November 18th, 2003
Board of County Commissioners meeting. Request to grant final
approval of the roadway private drainage water and sewer
improvements for the final plat of Links at the Strand. The roadway
and drainage improvements will be privately maintained. The water
and sewer improvements will be maintained by Collier County. And
that's at petitioner's request.
The next item is continue Item 6(B)(8) to November 18th, 2003
Board of County Commissioners meeting. And it reads: Request the
Board approve a resolution implementing certain procedures and
guidelines to standardize traffic impact studies, TIS. And that's at
staff's request.
Item 16(D)(7), the last paragraph on Page 1 should read
manager, not manger.
The next item is move Item 16(H)(3) to 9(D), and that's
Commissioner Henning request for approval for payment of expenses
serving a valid public purpose. And that's at Commissioner Halas's
request.
And the time certain item is Item 10(C), to be heard at 12:00
noon. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
and the county's Labor Negotiation Committee hold a strategy
session for the collective bargaining with the Southwest Florida
Professional Firefighters and Paramedics IAFF Local 1826, in the
shade, pursuant to Section 477.0 -- point -- excuse me, 477.605(1), of
the Florida Statutes.
There's also to add an item on 5(B), and that's a presentation by
our tax collector. And that just came to my attention. Something
about a check. And I figured that would be something good to put on
Page 4
October 28, 2003
the agenda today.
I will say, to back what David mentioned about Item 10(C), it
will be in the Board's conference room, in the shade. And, Mr.
Chairman, if this meeting ends before our 12:00 in the shade, I would
request that you reconvene this meeting back in the sunlight and then
you can basically close it out.
But I think after the -- in the shade, then you need to come back
and say -- just in case we get done early today, because it seems like
we have a pretty light schedule.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, you have any
changes to today's agenda or any ex parte communication on the
summary agenda?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No in both cases.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: None.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have none.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a couple of comments that I
would like to make.
On 16(A)(19), which is the relocation expenses, I was just -- I'd
just like to go on record and say that I hope this doesn't become a
common practice. I realize the urgency for this particular one, but
just so that we have something on the record that says that we don't
always have to be bound by this practice --
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am, this isn't a precedent, this is one of a
kind.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I understand that, but I thought it's
good to be on the record.
And also, Jim Mitchell was in my office yesterday. We talked
about 16(C)(6). And Jim Mitchell just was -- he asked me to
Page 5
October 28, 2003
comment for him. He was so impressed that the staff had stepped up
to the plate, identified the problem, openly wrote about it in the
consent, and solved the problem and put controls in place to make
sure it doesn't happen again, so in the long run the taxpayers benefit.
And he just wanted me to go on record for him to say that he was
impressed with staff and the manner in which they conducted
themselves.
And that's all I have, Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's Carl Boyer, for
everybody's information, who wrote such a great executive summary.
Thank you, Mr. DeLony.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for commenting on that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The -- I have no changes or no ex
parte communication on today's agenda, so we will move on to
service awards.
And today we -- oh, I'm sorry.
Page 6
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
October 28, 2003
Continue Item 8(A) to November 18, 2003 BCC meetinq. This item continued from
the September 23, 2003 BCC meetinq. {IDZ-2003-AR-3607, William L. Hoover,
AICP, of Hoover Planning and 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 minimum of 580 residential dwelling units. The property to be considered for
this rezone is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard just south of the
Crystal Lake PUD (RV Park), in Section 26, Township 48 south, Range 26 east,
Collier County, Florida. This property consists of 119+ acres. (Petitioner request.)
Add Item 9(E): Fleischman property discussion. (Commissioner Coyle request.)
Continue
with the
Regional
Item 10A to November 18, 2003 BCC meeting: Approve an agreement
Gulf Coast Skimmers to terminate the lease agreement at Sugden
Park. (Staff request.)
Continue Item 16(A)3 to November 18, 2003 BCC meetinq: Request to grant final
approval of the roadway (private), drainage, water and sewer improvements for
the final plat of "Links at the Strand". The roadway and drainage improvements
will be privately maintained, the water and sewer improvements will be maintained
by Collier County. (Petitioner request.)
Continue Item 16(B)8 to November 187 2003 BCC meetinq.
approve a resolution implementing certain procedures
standardize Traffic Impact Studies (TIS). (Staff request.)
Request the Board
and guidelines to
Item 16(D)6: Last paragraph on page 1 should read "Manager" (not "manger").
Move Item 16(H)3 to 9(D): Commissioner Henning request for approval for
payment for expenses serving a valid public purpose. (Commissioner Halas
request.)
Time Certain Items:
Item 10C to be heard at 12:00 noon: Recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners and the County's Labor Negotiation Committee hold a strategy
session for collective bargaining with the Southwest Florida Professional
Firefighters and Paramedics, IAFF Local 1826, in the shade pursuant to Section
477.605 (1) Fla. Stat.
October 28, 2003
Item #2B, Item #2C, and Item #2D
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2003 BCC BUDGET HEARINGS,
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 BCC REGULAR MEETING,
M1NUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2003 BCC REGULAR MEETING
- APPROVED
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Agenda minutes. I make a
motion for approval of agenda minutes for today's regular consent
and summary agenda as amended, September 18th, 2003 BCC
budget hearing, the September 23rd, 2003 BCC regular meeting and
the September 24th, 2003 BCC regular meeting.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta,
second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #3
SERVICE AWARDS: TWENTY-YEAR ATTENDEE TO JOANNE
SOPRANO, IJBRARY- PRESENTED
Now we can move on to service awards. And today we have the
honor of recognizing a 20-year attendee of Collier County, Joanne
Page 7
October 28, 2003
Soprano, from the Library.
Would you like to come down and join us to recognize this
employee?
MR. MUDD: Joanne, if you would come forward. Right there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I want to thank you for your service
of Collier County. Also a little token of our appreciation. Thank
yOU.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER AS NATIONAL
EPII.EPSY AWARENESS MONTH- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item is proclamations. First
proclamation will be read by Commissioner Coletta. And this is to
designate November as National Epileptic Awareness month.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you, Commissioner
Henning.
WHEREAS, epilepsy, also known as Seizure Disorder, has
afflicted mankind since the dawn of our species and has been
recognized since the earliest medical writings; and,
WHEREAS, as long ago as 400 B.C., Hypocrisis (sic), the
father of medicine, repudiated ancient beliefs that epilepsy was a
visitation from the gods and they -- and a scared (sic), so that it was a
curse from the gods, that people afflicted with this disorder held
prophetic powers. Hypocrisy (sic) believed that epilepsy was a brain
disorder; and,
WHEREAS, a seizure is a sudden brief attack of alternated (sic)
consciousness, motor activity or sensory phenomena. It is a sign that
certain brain cells, neurons, are discharging an excessive amount of
electrical impulses; and,
Page 8
October 28, 2003
WHEREAS, epilepsy can be caused by injury to the brain, lack
of oxygen at birth, brain tumor, infection and brain hemorrhage. In
60 percent of the cases the cause is unknown; and,
WHEREAS, epilepty (sic) can affect anyone at any age at any
time; and,
WHEREAS, more than two million Americans are afflicted with
some type of epilepy (sic). Of this number, 150,000 are Florida
residents; and,
WHEREAS, the administration of anti-convulsive drugs, two
thirds, 66.66 percent of those afflicted with epilepsy are drug
controlled; and,
WHEREAS, lack of education about this disorder has
contributed to age-old myths, superstitions and prejudice; and,
WHEREAS, the stigma associated with this disorder is
sometimes worse than the disorder itself; and,
WHEREAS, people who have epilepsy make reliable and
conscientious workers in job performance, productivity, safety,
cooperation and attendance; and,
WHEREAS, studies carried out in the United States over the
past 30 years have indicated that all (sic) the disabilities, epilepsy
poses the greatest barrier to employment, with unemployment rates
estimated to fall between 20 and 25 percent; and,
WHEREAS, epilepsy should not be a barrier to success. In
addition to the normal requirements for a success, a person who has
epilepsy needs a supportive environment and employers who are
willing to give them an opportunity to become productive citizens.
AND (sic) THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that the month of
November be designated as National Epilepsy Awareness month.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 28th day of October, 2003, Tom
Henning, Chair.
And I make a motion for approval.
Page 9
October 28, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll 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 FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE MONTH OF
NOVEMBER, 2003 AS COLLIER COUNTY ADOPTION MONTH
- ADOPTF, D
Next proclamation will be read by Commissioner Fiala. And
this is to designate the month of November, 2003 as Collier County
Adoption month. To accept this is Debbie Allen and Danielle
Stewart.
Please come forward.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Terri Iamurri.
MS. IAMURRI: Danielle couldn't make it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, okay.
Mr. Jim Allen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Proclamation:
WHEREAS, every child has the right to grow in a secure, loving
family, and adoption is a positive way to build a family; and,
Page 10
October 28, 2003
WHEREAS, the Adoption Task Force of Southwest Florida is a
collaborative effort of community agencies and individuals to create
and increase awareness of adoption; and,
WHEREAS, the Adoption Task Force of Southwest Florida,
Inc.'s purpose is to provide resources and education on the various
aspects of adoption and to promote positive attitudes towards
adoption; and,
WHEREAS, adoption brings untold benefits to Collier County
residents that are affected by the adoption process. This includes
benefits to birth parents, adoptive parents and the children placed in
adoptive homes, as well as their extended families; and,
WHEREAS, crisis pregnancy is a problem in Collier County,
and adoption is a positive option that is not always considered due to
a lack of awareness and education.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the month of
November, 2003 be designated as Collier County Adoption Month.
And in honor of this event, we encourage citizens, community
agencies, religious organizations, businesses and others to celebrate
adoption and honor the families that grow through adoption.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 28th day of October, 2003,
Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Tom
Henning, Chairman.
Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala,
second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 11
October 28, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
MS. IAMURRI: I just want to say that I have been touched by
adoption personally and have enjoyed every moment of it, and I
think so many families have.
I wanted to let you all know as well that the Adoption Task
Force is putting on a seminar to coincide with National Adoption
Month, which is the month of November. And our seminar will be at
the Hawthorne Suites on November 15th, which is a Saturday, from
9:00 to 12:00. And you can contact the Adoption Task Force if
there's any interest in that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your name for the record, please?
MS. IAMURRI: I'm sorry, Theresa Iamurri.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE FLORIDA FIRE
SCHOOL AND THOSE DEDICATED INDIVIDUALS AND
AGENCIES FOR THEIR EFFORTS IN PROVIDING THIS
I:iFJNF, FICIAIJ TRAINING- ADOPTED
Next proclamation I will deliver. And this proclamation is to
recognize Florida's Fire School and their dedicated individual (sic)
and agencies for their efforts in approving the beneficial training.
To accept this award is Warren Heltsley and along with Doug
Doyer. Gentlemen, please join us up front here.
WHEREAS, the professional and volunteer firefighters
throughout the State of Florida are an extremely valuable asset in
providing for the health, safety of our residents; and,
Page 12
October 28, 2003
WHEREAS, there is as continuing need for the quality training
to enable the public safety providers, particularly those professionals
and volunteer firefighters, to maintain their skills; and,
WHEREAS, to satisfy the needs of (sic) the Greater Florida Fire
School was developed to provide training in a comprehensive and
economical way; and,
WHEREAS, Collier County has the privilege of hosting the
Great Florida Fire School November 7th through November 10th,
2003; and,
WHEREAS, to fulfill the training needs, more than 35 classes
have been scheduled through several venues throughout Collier
County; and,
WHEREAS, more than 150 fire service responders from
throughout the State of Florida and the neighboring states have
enrolled and are participating in the training; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners wish to express its
gratitude and appreciation to Edison Community College, the State
Fire College, the Collier County Chiefs Association for hosting and
developing a value (sic) training opportunity to sincerely welcome
the students and the guests of Collier County.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida on behalf of the citizens of
Collier County, hereby recognizes these dedicated individual
agencies for their efforts in providing beneficial training.
DONE IN THIS ORDER (sic) the 28th day, October, 2003.
Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 13
October 28, 2003
yOU.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Thank
CHIEF DOYER: Thank you very much. Deputy Chief Doug
Doyer, East Naples Fire Department and Chairperson for the Great
Florida Fire School.
We thank you for your proclamation and your support. This is a
great opportunity. It's a joint venture, a collaborative effort between
all the fire service agencies in Collier County: Collier Emergency
Medical Services, the Florida State Fire College and Edison College.
A great opportunity for all of us to come together to host this
training.
Right now we have 169 students taking up 310 seats -- several
of them are taking multiple classes -- which account for about 4,500
contact hours. That's a great opportunity. And we thank you very
much for your proclamation. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, thank you.
As a former fire commissioner, I always have found the
professionalism of the firefighters and the volunteers to be the
highest that I have ever seen throughout the State of Florida or the
nation. You guys do a tremendous job for the citizens. Thank you.
CHIEF DOYER: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
The -- I did pass out for everyone's information, there's a
brochure for the course offerings and a schedule that, if you wish to
visit, you're more than welcome. The public is welcome to come by
and see what these guys are doing. Some of it is pretty, you know,
exciting: A lot of fire, car fires and extrication, and some of it is
Page 14
October 28, 2003
classroom work, you know, getting into the books.
than welcome to stop by and visit with the students.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Thank you.
But you're more
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 16,
2003 AS LAKE TRAFFORD RESTORATION AWARENESS DAY
- ADOPTF, D
Next proclamation will be Commissioner Coletta again. This
proclamation is to designate Sunday, November 16th, '03 as Lake
Trafford Restoration Awareness Day. To accept this is Nicole Ryan
from the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. And if I may, I'd also like
to call up Annie Olesky, who has been known as the person who's
been very protective of Lake Trafford and very active on the task
force. Would you come up also, Annie. Thank you.
WHEREAS, Lake Trafford is an economically and ecologically
important lake in Southwest Florida; and,
WHEREAS, efforts to restore Lake Trafford to its place as a
premier recreational fishing lake, wildlife habitat and an integral part
of the Southwest Florida ecosystem are of the utmost importance;
and,
WHEREAS, Lake Trafford has been invaded with a variety of
noxious, exotic plants, mainly hydrilla, within the past 50 years, and
control of which -- controls of which have caused the buildup of
organic durbish (sic) on the lake; and,
WHEREAS, Lake Trafford has accumulated eight million cubic
yards of decomposing organic sediment over the bottom of the
1,500-acre lake; and,
Page 15
October 28, 2003
WHEREAS, Lake Trafford has been the site of several major
fish kills, one of which caused the death of 50,000 fish in April of
1996; and,
WHEREAS, Collier County recognizes the importance of
restoring Lake Trafford and has supported this effort through $2
million in funding and by appointing the Lake Trafford Restoration
Task Force, which I am pleased to be a member of, which draws
together federal, state and local agencies, local businesses,
environmental groups and interested citizens, all dedicated to
cleaning up the lake; and,
WHEREAS, the success of the task force has been in its ability
to stress the importance of the project to the community while
maintaining a high level of support among stakeholders and elected
officials, thus securing funds for restoration; and,
WHEREAS, community grass roots support for Lake Trafford
restoration is key to the obtaining the funds for dredging the lake and
restoring it to a healthy system; and,
WHEREAS, grass roots support has been shown annually at
Lake Trafford barbecue fundraiser, the proceeds of which go directly
towards helping restore the lake and educating the community; and,
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida that Sunday,
November 16th, 2003 is Lake Trafford Restoration Awareness Day.
In celebration of the lake and in an effort to maintain the high level
of community support and awareness, the Lake Trafford Restoration
Task Force will be hosting a barbecue fundraiser in conjunction with
a free concert by the United States Navy Band, County Currents.
The Task Force invites all residents to come out to Lake Trafford and
participate in these festivities.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 28th day, October, 2003, Tom
Henning, Chair.
I make a motion for approval.
Page 16
October 28, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I second that.
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 FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Any opposed?
Motion carries 5-0.
MS. RYAN: Good morning, Commissioners, my name is
Nicole Ryan and I'm a member of your Lake Trafford Restoration
Task Force.
On behalf of the Task Force, I would like to thank you for your
continued support of Lake Trafford and the restoration efforts. I
would also like to mention that Clarence Tears, who is the Director
of the Big Cypress Basin and also the Chair of our task force,
apologizes for not being able to be here today, but he is away on
military duty.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Playing soldier again.
MS. RYAN: As Commissioner Coletta said, the wake-up call
for Lake Trafford really came when the 50,000 large fish went belly
up in the lake back in 1996.
At that time, everyone knew something needed to be done, so
the Collier County Commission appointed the Lake Trafford Task
Force in order to get key agencies and other interested groups
together to try to expedite a lake restoration project.
Dredging plans were made to scoop eight million cubic yards of
muck from the bottom of the lake and the lake was put on a list of
critical projects awaiting funding. However, the lake was far down
Page 17
October 28, 2003
on the list.
So through the efforts of the Task Force and primarily the
efforts of Annie and Ski Olesky, we had dozens of fishermen,
environmentalists and concerned citizens come to that next critical
restoration ranking meeting. Lake Trafford was number 34 out of 34
projects. By the end, Lake Trafford was number 15. Today Lake
Trafford is number three for funding.
This really shows how powerful grass roots support can be.
And when the community cares, we can get projects done. The
restoration of Lake Trafford is a multi-million dollar, multi-agency
endeavor that encompasses federal, state and local interests, and
Collier County has given $2 million to the effort, and we thank you
again for that.
We're hoping that dredging on the lake will begin very shortly.
However, the Task Force wants to make sure that Lake Trafford is at
the forefront of everyone's mind; from the Governor on down
through state and local officials to the people who wrote letters of
support for lake clean-up. And that's why we have our annual Lake
Trafford barbecue.
This year the barbecue is a little bit different than in the past.
It's going to be on a Sunday, Sunday, November 16th, and it will be
from noon to 5:00 at the Lake Trafford Marina and the adjacent Lake
Trafford County Park. There is going to be a barbeque fundraiser,
and I put some invitations on the table outside, so I encourage
everyone to pick up an invitation and sign up.
The barbecue will include such Florida delicacies as alligator
tail and swamp cabbage, and more traditional foods, barbecued
chicken, corn on the cob, homemade desserts, things like that.
The cost for a barbecue ticket is $25 per person, and all the
proceeds will go to the Lake Trafford Restoration Fund. And this
fund gives money to restoration projects and to education for Lake
Trafford.
Page 18
October 28, 2003
In addition to the barbecue, which will be at the marina, there is
going to be a free concert at Lake Trafford County Park, and the
United States Navy Band, Country Currents, will be playing
bluegrass music from 2:00 until 4:00. There will be some local
musicians prior to the Navy band.
If folks don't want to buy barbecue tickets, they can still come
out, we're going to sell burgers and hot dogs and drinks. So I
encourage everyone to come out and view the lake, watch the
wildlife and support this effort. And if anyone has any questions,
they can call the Conservancy. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Nicole.
Item #4E
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 2003 AS
UNITED WAY OF COLLIER COUNTY AGENCY AWARENESS
MONTH - ADOPTF, D
Next proclamation will be delivered by Commissioner Coyle.
This proclamation is to designate November, 2003 as United Way of
Collier County Agency Awareness Month.
To accept this award is Dan Rodriguez, Collier County Facility
Manager and member of the Collier County United Way branch.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There apparently is more than one
person here. I'm told that Ernest Bretzmann, Executive Director and
Shannon Anderson, Campaign Development Director, are here also.
WHEREAS, since 1957, the United Way of Collier County has
sponsored and funded qualified nonprofit community agencies which
provide essential social and health services to our citizens; and,
WHEREAS, throughout the 46-year history of the United Way
of Collier County, the organization has demonstrated continued
growth and is currently funding 28 community agencies, providing
Page 19
October 28, 2003
services to all areas of our county; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners gratefully
acknowledge and support the fine work of the United Way of Collier
County and its member agencies.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that November, 2003 be
designated as United Way of Collier County Agency Awareness
Month.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 28th day of October, 2003.
Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Tom
Henning, Chairman.
Move approval, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Thank
yOU.
MS. FUSON: Good morning. I'm Palma Fuson and I'm the
Campaign Chair for United Way for 2003-2004.
Since 1957, the United Way of Collier County has provided a
safety net for people in our community. We are very appreciative of
the support of the Board of the Collier County Commissioners and
the employees of Collier County, which has been very instrumental
in our continued growth and success for the past 46 years. Thank
Page 20
October 28, 2003
you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Palma.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Palma. Thank you, County
Commissioners.
For the record, Daniel Rodriguez, your Facilities Manager,
Facilities Management Department.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank County Manager
Jim Mudd and Leo Ochs for their continued support of the United
Way program and its contributions to the community, and for the
opportunity for the participation in this proclamation.
I am confident this year will be our most successful in raising
contributions to United Way to fund those wonderful programs that
Palma just mentioned. It is through the cooperation of employees,
county departments and other governmental agencies that we will
exceed our donations elected in previous years.
In showing our commitment and resolve to raise funds for the
United Way program, I would like to recognize several individuals
and their respective agencies who have come here to show their
support for the United Way. The Honorable Guy Carlton, Claude
Haines, Christine Landry with the Clerk of Courts office, and Gary
Bushaw (phonetic) with the Supervisor of Elections, and Tina
Osceola with the Sheriffs Department.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could we have these individuals
stand and be recognized?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure.
It is through individuals like these and our many giving county
employees that we will touch the lives of citizens in Collier County
and truly make them better.
Thank you, Commissioners, for your support, and we look
forward to giving back to our community, United Way.
Item #4F
Page 21
October 28, 2003
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 28, 2003 AS
COLLIER COUNTY WASTEWATER OPERATIONS
CHAI~I~F, NGF, DAY- ADOPTF, D
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next one is a proud one for all in
county government. And this will be delivered by Commissioner
Halas.
This proclamation is designate October 28, 2003 as Collier
County Wastewater Operation Challenge Day.
To accept this is members of the Royal Flush Team, including
Joseph Bianchi, Big Bang For Your Buck Bill Combs, David Fitts
and Daniel Waller. Gentlemen, would you please come up here?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: As these gentlemen are coming up
here, I'd just like to say that where you have competitive spirit in the
work place, this carries through not only in your daily lives but it
also carries into how well you do your job, and I think it instills a
competitive spirit to be the very best. And obviously, as we go
through this proclamation, we'll find-- we'll see this. The proclamation reads as follows:
WHEREAS, the citizens of Collier County operate a
community-owned utility; and,
WHEREAS, the efficiency and skill of the Collier County
Wastewater personnel help to provide reliable service to our homes,
businesses at the lowest possible cost; and,
WHEREAS, in September, 2003, a team of Collier County
Wastewater Department employees competed with teams across the
State of Florida in Hampton Roads Sanitation District Invitational
Operations Challenge, where they finished second place overall,
thereby earning the right to compete against teams from across North
America at the Water Environment Federation National Operations
Challenge Competition held in Los Angeles, California, Tuesday,
Page 22
October 28, 2003
October 14th, 2003;
WHEREAS, the 2003 Collier County Wastewater Operations
Challenge Team, known as Royal Flush, placed second place overall
against 22 teams entered in their division and was voted the most
improved team at this year's Water Environment Federation National
Operations Challenge; and,
WHEREAS, Royal Flush team members, Joseph Bianchi,
Senior Crew Leader, Wastewater Collections; and William Combs,
Maintenance Specialist, South County Water Reclamation Facility;
David Fitts, Senior Field Supervisor Water Collection; and Dale
Waller, Plant Superintendent, North County Water Reclamation
Facility, have made a positive contribution to our county.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that October 28, 2003 be
designated as Collier County Wastewater Operations Challenge Day,
and invite all citizens to join together in honoring these employees of
Collier County Public Utilities. We extend sincere congratulations
and genuine gratitude for a job well done.
DONE ON THE ORDER (sic) OF THIS 28th day of October,
2003. Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida,
signed by the Chairperson, Tom Henning. Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas,
second by Commissioner Coyle.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
Page 23
October 28, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Thank
you.
MR. CHEATHAM: Commissioners, if you would, I'd like to
direct your attention to the monitors and you'll see some of the
competition taking place in the Los Angeles Convention Center, one
of five events. The Collier County Royal Flush team came in first
place in two of these events.
And this event you see right here is the wastewater collection
event, where they're having to repair a piece of wastewater gravity
main and also provide a repair piece with a tap, somewhat like a
sewer lateral.
And this competition, as you see, the team exemplifies a lot of
team work, working together, speed, accuracy. They are judged.
You see the judge there in the foreground there judging the team as
they are competing. They're graded. They're graded on examples of
how well they compete the event, how fast they do it in time. And
they're given penalties, and if they do anything wrong -- and I'd like
to say again, this team won this event.
There was four other events. They placed first place also in the
safety event where they had to simulate rescue of a person in a
hazardous chemical leak area.
They finished second place in the laboratory event, which they
had to do four different types of laboratory analyses.
They also finished second place in the pump maintenance event
where they had to completely rebuild a pump from start to finish. Did
it in less than five minutes. I told the guys they needed to do that on
the job now back here at home.
And they also completed in the process control event. They
finished second place overall out of 20 something teams in their
division, teams from all over the country, including one team this
year from South America. So it was truly an international event,
with teams competing from Canada, South America, as well as North
Page 24
October 28, 2003
America.
They received also at the competition a recognition from EPA,
Washington, for certification for being there, participating. And also,
we're very proud of the Most Improved Team.
The Water Environmental Federation has been doing this for 16
years. Collier County has been competing for four years. And we're
just very proud this team finished in second place in the nation in this
event. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very good. Shows what a team
can do.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to
make the observation, I think it's only fitting that Commissioner
Halas was chosen to read this proclamation, since the residents in his
district generate more wastewater per person than any other
community in the county.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Manager?
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move 5(B) up now to
get Mr. Guy Carlton to talk to the Board and get him back on the job,
and then we'll go to 5(A).
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Manager, we're proud of
your employees for their accomplishments.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, they're awesome. And I want to make
everybody know that they did this on their own time as far as training
is concerned. They went in the evenings and stuff to get together to
work that teamwork.
Those four gentlemen will provide a core group of cadre, and
they'll pass those good ideas and those good procedures down to all
the employees, so it serves us well through their dedication. And we
do have a top notch organization out there in collections, and these
gentlemen proved it for us.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Page 25
October 28, 2003
Item #5B
PRESENTATION OF A CHECK FOR $4,438,389.19 BY GUY
CARI~TON: COI.IJIFiR COIINTY TAX COI,I~FJCTOR
Item 5(B), Collier County Tax Collector, Guy Carlton. Guy,
thank you for being here today.
MR. CARLTON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, I'm Guy Carlton, your friendly tax collector.
And if laughter truly is the best medicine, let me compliment
you on a drug-free meeting so far.
There's an old Russian saying: If you don't know where you're
going, any road will take you there.
I want the Board to be comfortable that the Tax Office and their
staff know exactly where they're going and remain focused every day
on effective and efficient service.
And the part about roads, we'll let the Board handle that.
I'm a fee officer. The fees that are unused this year, turnback to
the county as a whole, is 5.9 million. The Board's portion is 5.3
million. I have a court order for the first time withholding $906,000
for the Port of the Isles bankruptcy, so the Board's check this
morning will be $4,438,389.19.
I know that you want to spend part of this on building C-1, so I
want to get it to you as quickly as possible. I'll give it to your money
guy.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please give it to the Clerk of the
Court. Thank you.
MR. CARLTON: For you, go King.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Mr. Carlton, you all done?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess he is.
Page 26
October 28, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, thank you very much for being
with us today. Go back to work, please, and collect those taxes. It's
always a pleasure.
MR. MUDD: I will tell you that that return from the tax
collector exceeded our expectations. And indeed, he does run a very
tight ship in his operation, and we need to thank the tax collector for
being so very, very diligent in his duties to provide that turnback to
Collier County. And I'll -- for the record today, later on during
communications I will talk about two other constitutional officers
that are pretty much in that same group, diligent public servants, and
talk about their turnback.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Item #5A
RECOGNIZE SHARON GILBERT, OPERATIONS
COORDINATOR, TRANSPORTATION DIVISION AS
EMPIJOYF, FJ OF THE MONTH OF OCTOBF, R
Next item is 5(A). This is where the Board of Commissioners
gets to recognize some of their dedicated employees through the
Employee of the Month, and today we have the honor of recognizing
Sharon Gilbert, Operations Coordinator, Transportation Division.
Sharon, would you please come forward, please.
Sharon's title is just a small indicator of what she does for the
Transportation right-of-way section. Her duties include handling and
budgeting and financial issues for the office, which she has done. It
itself is a full-time job.
Sharon has also been active in negotiating with owners in
acquiring property for the eight-mile long Immokalee Road project,
from Collier Boulevard to 43rd Street Northeast, and then for the
Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project.
Page 27
October 28, 2003
One of Sharon's strengths is her good nature and ability to
communicate as well in a business situation. For some instances,
Sharon has been successful in communicating well in business
situations, acquiring donations from a willing landowner once she
explained how the stormwater project will be beneficial to their
neighborhood. And -- but her dedication to the project, not to the
end there.
Several of the property owners adamantly opposed donating the
property, and someone not up to the challenge might have stopped
there. Without unanimous neighbor support and donations of the
effective property, the project would have been halted. With
Sharon's patient understanding and persistence, she was able to
negotiate a mutually beneficient (sic) donation agreement for some
of the most unyielding options and kept up -- the project moving.
Sharon has shown her exemplary customer service all day,
every day, whether with the staff or with the public. Sharon
contributes (sic) during department moves was a perfect example.
She was the glue that held the move together with her coordination
and organizational skills. She was very good-natured and focused on
the entire movement -- move and would it have not been for her
accomplished, nearly successful without her guidance (sic).
And Sharon, I want to present you with a small token of our
appreciation by the Board of Commissioners. Also a plaque
recognizing your Employee of the Month. And just a small letter
from myself. Thank you. Great employee.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY MR. WILLIAM L.
MCDANIEL, JR. TO DISCUSS HOURS OF OPERATION FOR
THE MINING INDUSTRY IN COLLIER COUNTY- TO BE
BROUGHT BACK TO FUTURE MEETING FOR
Page 28
October 28, 2003
CONSIDERATION- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Brings us to Item 6(A), Mr. Chairman, which is a
public petition request from Mr. William L. McDaniel, Jr. to discuss
hours of operation for the mining industry in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: In other public petition the Board
cannot take action, only direct staff to bring it back at a future
agenda?
MR. MUDD: If they so wish, yes, sir.
MR. McDANIEL: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is William L. McDaniel, Jr.
Am I allowed to pass out some information to you with respect
to this issue?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Uh-huh.
MS. FILSON: I can pass it out for you.
MR. McDANIEL: I have a total of six. I gave one to Mr.
Schmitt in the back and then there's one for each Commissioner, and
Mr. Mudd, our county manager.
The packet that I'm handing out to you this morning is an
informational package that is a derivative of a lot of work, a lot of
different people within Collier County, staff and local residents
affected by this particular issue.
And candidly, Commissioners, I'm not looking to take up a lot
of time of your busy day today. This is a small piece of a puzzle that
is a necessary evil within our community, something that we've
talked about at great length for a long period of time.
The first letter in your packet there is a letter from Doug
Rankin, the President of the Golden Gate Homeowners Association.
He brought this issue up in front of his group and unanimously voted
to proceed.
The second letter is a letter from Ann Waterhouse, President of
Orangetree Homeowners Association. She was in attendance at a
Page 29
October 28, 2003
meeting with Commissioner Coletta, an advisory group that was
established by Commissioner Coletta to take care of-- talk about
issues within our community, more specifically District 5.
And that meeting, that group, which is an assemblage of
different homeowners associations within District 5, unanimously
voted to ask Commissioner Coletta to move forward with this subject
matter. And minimumly (sic) on a trial basis, and that's
predominantly why I'm here. I wasn't -- we weren't aware that he
couldn't just wave his magic wand and make that happen. So
specifically we're here to request an adjustment of the hours of
operation from the current Land Development Code of 7:00 in the
morning to 5:00 in the evening, six days a week, to 5:30 in the
morning to 3:30 in the afternoon for the same days of operation.
Same hours, just moving it ahead two hours.
But last, there's other information there, a letter -- or an e-mail
copied from Stan Chrzanowski to Commissioner Coletta back in
February. He went out with his little video camera at the intersection
of 858 and Immokalee Road, and the synopsis of that adventure is
part of your package.
There's also a letter from Ed Kant, who at the time was in
Traffic at the Department of Transportation, that statistically shows
you the peak hours of that intersection in that area.
And necessarily, what we're suggesting here is -- the last two
graphs -- and I apologize for the quality of those copies, but I was
copying off of color graphs that I was supplied. The last two graphs
show those peak hours at 7:00 in the morning and 5:00 in the
evening. And what we're suggesting is taking 150 -- in excess of 150
trips off those peak hours and moving them to non-peak hours. And
then in turn disbursing the bounds of that traffic throughout the
community and coming back against the flow of the heavy traffic
that is westbound, utilizing 846.
Not to mention another positive attribute to this is with the
Page 30
October 28, 2003
advent, thank you, finally, the six-laning of Immokalee Road, that
construction begins at 7:00, and this is an opportunity again to
disburse those commercial vehicles throughout the community to get
done the job that they actually have to do.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. This came
before our civic advisory group, which has members from all the
property owners and civic associations throughout District 5, and
they're endorsing this for a trial period to be able to see how it works.
Now, I realize that there's some reservations on the part of staff.
But generally, everyone I've talked to is pretty accepting of the fact
that this might be a good idea as far as removing the fact that all
these trucks are leaving at the same time, at the same time when we
have all the traffic on Immokalee Road and Oil Well Road. And
you'll have some of them starting to return but still, it will be
disbursed across the county, like Bill said. At least that's the theory.
The thing is, is that what I'd like to see us do is bring this back
to be able to look at it for a trial period of about three months to be
able to weigh the outcome of it and to make sure that it does do what
it's supposed to do and then go forward. But it has the support of the
organizations in the area.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Question for staff. What are the
hours permitted for construction in the county?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The hours permitted for construction
under 1.5.5 of the Land Development Code are 6:30 in the morning
to 7:00 at night.
Under the Building Construction Administrative Code, which is
a separate stand-alone ordinance, they've adopted those same hours.
Under 3.5.7.5 of the Excavation-- which is the excavation
section of the Land Development Code, they limited the hours of
operation for any excavation within 1,000 feet of residential area to
Page 31
October 28, 2003
7:00 in the morning to 5:00 at night, Monday to Friday, and 7:00 in
the morning to 5:00 at night -- I'm sorry, the first one was Monday to
Saturday.
And if you're in Golden Gate Estates, those Class I and Class II
excavations, you're 7:00 in the morning to 5:00 at night, Monday to
Friday.
This operation butts up against the Estates. He's -- well, the first
operation is Winchester. It's like one square mile. So you have a
buffer around there that they can't dig within that first 1,000 feet of
that mile. But a mile is 5,000 feet. So they could go -- you know,
within the internal 3,000 feet, they could dig according to the other
hours.
It's real confusing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I guess my concern is --
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: And we also have a noise ordinance.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Excuse me, your name for the
record?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Oh, Stan Chrzanowski. I'm with
Engineering Review.
We also have a noise ordinance, which I think is what started all
this. They took the noise ordinance and then they adopted it to the
Land Development Code, the Building Construction Administrative
Code. It's in four separate parts of stand-alone ordinances in the
LDC.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess the point of my question
was that if we adopt these revised hours, it certainly seems to solve
one of the problems of traffic on the road at peak hours. But does that
mean that trucks will be arriving in areas where construction is
underway prior to the permitted times for construction? And will
they be going into residential areas or other areas prior to the times
allowed for construction? I guess that's my primary question.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, let me try to help just a little bit.
Page 32
October 28, 2003
And I know this is hard. But you got a copy of this, and that was part
of your handout. And here's the slides.
This is -- this is southbound traffic. And you notice the peaks
are coming on right here around 7:00, okay? And it's up here and it's
to the tune of about 650 trucks. And you see -- and you see a
ramp-up along this line, getting to the peak. And then it basically
goes down and it stays pretty level until around 16:00.
The northbound traffic on the other -- on the other hand --
excuse me, it's all traffic. The -- Ed Kant just whispered in my ear,
along with Stan.
It's all traffic. You'll notice it pretty much -- the traffic starts to
ramp-up here around 8:00, stays pretty steady. And then there's a
ramp-up at quitting time when people are coming home around 17:00
hours.
If you take a look at the traffic north and south in a combined
chart -- and I don't know if you were given this first chart or not. This
is combined. Northbound and southbound together on Immokalee,
south of Oil Well Road.
And you can see that your traffic starts to -- starts to move at
around 04:00 hours, and then basically comes to a peak around 8:00
in the morning. And that's presumably when people are going to
work. Stays pretty constant out here. And then you have another
peak, which -- the other slide I showed you -- coming home at
around 17:00 hours.
Presumably, if you wanted the truck traffic to come earlier, they
would start ramping up earlier, and they would-- and they would
basically come in at the pits at around 5:30 in the morning, which is
this line right here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that's not my concern.
Maybe I didn't phrase it properly. Let me try to use an example.
If we approve these times and the trucks show up at the pit at
5:30, I think, and they get a load --
Page 33
October 28, 2003
MR. MUDD: Pits.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Pits, okay.
MR. MUDD: There's 44 of them. And they're right there on
that slide. I wanted to make sure --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And they load up. Will they
appear at the house next door to me at 6:00 in the morning to dump
their load, or at 5:45 to dump their load, prior to the time when --
when the construction hours would permit them to do so? That's my
only concern.
And while I understand the need to balance the traffic on the
roads, I also understand the concern of people who are in residential
areas or in developing areas who are going to be disturbed at 5:30 or
maybe 6:00 in the morning by dump trucks dumping their roads.
MR. McDANIEL: Am I allowed to answer that question?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Please, yes.
MR. McDANIEL: Absolutely, with. respect to them arriving at
the job site necessarily before the LDC allows for dumping.
And the answer to that or the thought process with respect to
that is our neighboring county directly to the north, just up 1-75 --
and there are far more mines in Lee County than there are necessarily
in Collier. The majority of those mining operations up there have
hours of operation of 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
So if necessarily a jobber, i.e., a trucker, wishes to bring the
material to a job site early, they can do it at any time that they want
right down 1-75.
The premise here is again the dispersal of these commercial
vehicles throughout the community. They're not allowed to cross the
Marco Bridge until 7:00 in the morning. They go down and in that--
where the old boat ramp used to be right before the bridge is where
they stage up there, shut their trucks off, wait for the 7:00 bell and
then go on onto Marco Island in order to dump their material, so --
and the same thing necessarily can happen at other areas throughout
Page 34
October 28, 2003
the community.
And with respect to that, I mean, just from a statistical
information, I mean, one of the largest road projects that was
completed this year, or is in the process of being completed, is
Livingston Road extension. You folks bought in excess of a million
of yards of dirt from that mine, that Mr. Chrzanowski was discussing
there this year. So yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The objective is, does the County
Commissioners want to put this on a future agenda. Commissioner
Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have -- I'm not sure. I guess we
could bring it on the agenda for future discussion, but I have some
real concerns. As you know, last year we wrestled with the problem
here with Jake brakes and trucks running at 5:00 in the morning,
running up and down the highway. I'm afraid that the constituency in
all districts are going to oppose this, because I'm sure that they're not
going to be in favor of trucks running up and down the highway at
that time in the morning.
MR. McDANIEL: And a response to that, sir, is again,
reiteration of the hours of operation in a -- in very close proximity to
mining industries, where they can run our roads.
Number two, there is no regulation that prohibits a commercial
vehicle from running on the roads at any particular time of day that
they want, whether they're hauling material from Collier County
mines or not.
Number three, we've established a coalition between the mining
industry, the sheriff's department and the larger trucking groups, and
set up a line of communication. I've personally been commended by
-- at a Waterways and Orangetree Homeowners Association for a
noticeable reduction in the utilization of Jake brakes. I know that
there was a big issue about who was going to pay for the signs and
now the communities out in that area are actually going to buck up
Page 35
October 28, 2003
and pay for the lack of utilization of Jake brakes.
Within that package that I gave you is a monthly handout that
we, the mining industry, pass to the truckers once a month to remind
them, both in English and Spanish, please don't use your Jake brakes
in neighborhoods, as part of your operational aspect.
So there's -- we've established a voluntary safety inspection.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I want to hear from the other side.
MR. McDANIEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd make a motion to bring it back.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Motion by Commissioner
Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala to bring it back on the regular
agenda, advertised item.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Thank
yOU.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY MR. BOB KRASOWSKI TO
DISCUSS A WORKSHOP ON THE SOLID WASTE
MANAGF, MFNT ISSI IF, - PRF, SENTF, D
Next item -- next public petition is a request by Bob Krasowski
Page 36
October 28, 2003
to discuss the workshop on the solid waste management issue.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners, staff,
public. My name's Bob Krasowski, for the record, and I'm
representing the Zero Waste Collier County Group.
Today I come before you to petition you to consider holding
another solid waste workshop, discard materials workshop.
Given our current position, I believe it could be a very
productive activity. In support of my position to hold a workshop, I
will address some, not all, of the issues raised by the June 25th, 2003
memorandum generated from the office of the Public Utilities
Director.
Apparently this memo was developed to explain staffs position
regarding their reasons for not developing an RFP for zero waste,
even after they were directed to do so by a vote of the Collier County
Commissioners at the 6/26/01 meeting.
Now, by going into addressing the information in this
memorandum, I believe I'll explain how it's our impression that the
staff does not understand what we are looking for, asking for, as far
as zero waste inclusion in the county activities in developing a solid
waste management plan.
At your meeting of May 27th, 2003, I asked for an explanation
of what happened to the request for a proposal for zero waste voted
for by the County Commissioners on June 26th, 2001. I also
expressed concern about what I saw as a breakdown in the process of
governance in Collier County, where it seemed to me that directions
given to the staff by a vote of the Commission were not followed by
the staff, but other and different actions were taken that produced a
different result from that which would have occurred if the original
directions had been followed, thus leaving the citizens out in the
cold, so to speak, not -- citizens not getting the response that they
were promised. I still have concerns along those lines.
Now, if we could envision if an RFP for zero waste had been
Page 37
October 28, 2003
developed and put out and we would have gotten responses to it, an
analysis of our process by zero waste would have been available
today for us to look at and would have influenced your decision
making all along from 2002 on, as a comparison to the pyrolysis
process that was being analyzed and promoted by your consultant,
Malcolm Pirnie, who not only was your consultant but is outside at
waste energy conferences promoting pyrolysis. I witnessed this.
In the memorandum of June 25th, 2003, there's a bit of
information here. It quotes me and different comments I made at
different meetings, and the comments I made at the June 26th
meeting. It suggests that all of the items on this flow chart you're
looking at that we presented on June 26th were addressed in RFP's
independently. And in doing so, then the issue of zero waste, an RFP
for zero waste was unnecessary.
The county staff took it upon themselves to determine that an
RFP for zero waste -- a zero waste RFP would not be needed, based
on other RFP's that were done on individual portions of this.
But as I've explained many times over the years in front of you
and in personal meetings with the staff, a zero waste RFP would have
invited people who are familiar with zero waste processes, zero waste
planned development that would adhere to zero waste principles,
which is exclusionary of burning material, and maximizes recycling,
composting and all these other processes, collection processes.
Now, we have done, which is explained in the memorandum,
many things and given much analysis to the components. But a zero
waste analysis would plug those components into one and the other
and connect the various systems so we could be as effective in our
waste management handling -- discard materials handling as a
pyrolysis or an incinerator or something like that for less cost and
less environmental -- well, I won't say for less cost, we'll leave that
open. But for at least comparative cost and for a better
environmental result.
Page 38
October 28, 2003
Now here we see on the chart what was in the memorandum.
And I'm not sure if you've seen this memorandum before I distributed
it to you. Have they? I didn't see that they were copied on it, just the
leaders of the different departments that have been involved in this.
But here it's shown the different RFP's that went out on the
individual and specific elements of the issues at hand regarding the
zero waste -- a lot -- excuse me, regarding to the solid waste
management strategy. A lot of work, a lot of work that will be
beneficial as we move forward.
But once again, the zero waste analysis of these components and
the extension of knowledge that would be provided by people
knowledgeable in the zero waste -- application of the zero waste
strategy is not yet known to us. We haven't gotten there yet.
And here I've provided, and I have copies for you, a simplified,
condensed zero waste look -- type look at the waste stream and
where to direct things.
A key issue here, now, if you remember back to 6/26/01 when
the county moved to do the zero waste RFP, in our flow chart we had
incorporated many of the options that were suggested by the green
model project. But it was well understood at that meeting when Mr.
Gary Buress (phonetic) spoke -- he represented the green model
project -- that those were green model project elements that were
incorporated into our flow chart.
And part of the reason we did that was because that item on the
agenda that day was a report for request for additional information
for long-term and complementary solid waste assessments for Collier
County.
We agreed at that time, zero waste agreed at that time that the
FERCO option deserved-- we agreed with the staff and the county
that the FERCO option deserved looking at, that the CCI option,
Canadian Composting, should be looked at, visited and looked at,
and that the waste oil and grease to fuel with something else, that we
Page 39
October 28, 2003
should learn more about.
So we, with the zero waste interests, agreed that these other
elements could be further investigated. So what you had there wasn't
a zero waste proposal, it was a flow chart that represented what zero
waste agreed with as far as what should be pursued in further
analysis.
So you went ahead and did that, you analyzed all these different
components but you never -- not you -- but it was never done. A zero
waste RFP was never developed and set out. And we wanted that so
that we could have -- you had your Malcolm Pirnie, you had your pro
pyrolysis people working on the one hand with the county. We
wanted people independent of Malcolm Pirnie, independent of
pyrolysis, that had a different perspective, to go ahead and give us
input and report.
So we're looking for a workshop. We'd like you to put out an
RFP for zero waste so that people representing that analysis could be
present at the workshop. The RFP can explain that the people doing
the zero waste work would prepare an overview, an overlay initially,
come to the workshop and then at the workshop make a presentation,
and then we could go from there as to where we wanted to go.
I'm sure I didn't touch on everything. There's a lot in here. What
I've -- I hope I made enough points.
But the point -- one final point. It was said that zero waste was
like apples and oranges to what we were dealing with back in
6/26/01. The -- you can look at zero waste as similar to a process
like incineration in that when you study it and when you hear from
people representing that perspective, it can give you a solution to
managing your materials. So you want to burn it where you can look
at zero waste. So they're similar in that regard. They offer you a
process for handling, and you can compare them.
My time is up. Thank you for your attention to the matter and I
know we'll be talking more about solid waste later.
Page 40
October 28, 2003
Any questions of anybody?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions by the Board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Any direction?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Thank you.
Okay, next item is-
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2003-377 APPOINTING G. CHRISTOPHER
RAMSEY AND ALBERT DORIA AS "REGULAR" MEMBERS
AND APPOINTING RAYMOND J. BOWIE AS AN
"ALTERNATE" MEMBER TO THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE
ENFOR CEMFJNT BO ARD - ADOPTF, D
MR. MUDD: Brings us to Paragraph 9. All the items are
continued on 8. And that's appointment of members to the Collier
County Code Enforcement Board.
MS. FILSON: Commissioners, if I may, Rhona Saunders
resigned her position on the Code Enforcement Board last week.
And as you know, there's two alternate members on there, so the
other alternate member, Albert Doria, has asked to be appointed as a
full member, as well as Christopher Ramsey.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So actually there's three vacancies --
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- is that what you're saying?
MS. FILSON: And if the two alternates are appointed as
regular members then Raymond Bowie would become an alternate
and then I would advertise for the other alternate.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
Page 41
October 28, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Next item is?
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2003-378 APPOINTING G. RUSSELL WEYER TO
THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER/SMART GROWTH
ADVISORY COMMITTEFJ- ADOPTFJD
MR. MUDD: To appoint a member of the Community
Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioners, I looked at these
applicants, and they're all good. They're all going to provide great
input. So if anybody has any recommendations, I sure will second it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Since the committee has
recommended Russell Weyer, I think we probably would best go
with their recommendation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 42
October 28, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #9D
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL FOR PAYMENT FOR EXPENSES
SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE- APPROVED
W/STIPl II,ATIONS
MR. MUDD: That brings us to 9(D), which is item 16(H)(3),
and that is Commissioner Henning request for approval of payment
of expenses serving a valid public purpose.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, I understand
you pulled this item. Do you have any input today?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I'd just like to bring it up as
just general discussion, that I realized that you were asked to write
this letter, but I also was hoping that you would honor my request --
or not so much my request -- but my thoughts in regards that I felt
that we needed to have the citizens -- and. we still are in the process
of having the citizens -- work this out.
And I felt that in order for democracy to work to its fullest
ability, that I felt that we needed to step back and let them decide
what they wanted to do.
Realizing that both sides have put out information that's been
out there and realizing that you were concerned about some being --
some of the information being misrepresented because of something
that might have been said at the board meeting, I thought that you
Page 43
October 28, 2003
basically stepped up and answered that challenge by writing to the
newspaper and letting them know that -- what your thoughts were.
And I felt that that would have been sufficient.
If-- I would have hoped that we could have had an emergency
meeting to sanction this letter writing instead of coming before the
board today asking us to sanction reimbursement of what took place.
And that's where I stand on this, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Question of staff. Didn't we
approve some time back a budget line item for Commissioners to
send out literature informing residents of certain things?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, you did. And Mr. David Weigel has the
particulars on this particular item because he was the one that helped
write that ordinance, so I -- I'd like to defer to David, please. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
Commissioners, that was a resolution adopted October 8th of
2002. Resolution No. 2002-431. And it provided for -- the Board
had a finding in that resolution of a public purpose and benefit to
communicate with their districts, commission district newsletters,
e-mails, other transmittals, websites, things of that nature.
The items brought before the Board today, in point for
clarification, the Board certainly has the opportunity at any point in
time to approve an action taken as in the public purpose, and in this
case for reimbursement of expense, finding that it's in the public
purpose and benefit to do so.
As the resolution itself and the language and the discussion at
the meeting was more in the context of constituent newsletters or
district newsletters, for clarification I advised this come to the Board
for consideration and ratification, if that be the case.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I guess -- I understand and
sympathize with Commissioner Halas's concern about the process
and the way he would have preferred to handle it.
Page 44
October 28, 2003
I'm just going to try to deal with the expenditure itself. And I
think that there was a lot of misunderstanding with respect to this
issue, and I think the letter tended to clarify that. And for that
reason, I would suggest that we not consider it a personal expense of
our Chairman, who was clearly trying to deal with an issue where a
lot of incorrect information was floating around.
But perhaps the process -- I think the idea that maybe a meeting
would be appropriate and we'd discuss it and then authorize the
Chairman to send something out. But I would not like to saddle the
Chairman with the expense for doing this because I think he acted in
good faith with an interest in clarifying the record so that no more
public dissatisfaction would be generated through incorrect
statements being sent out to them.
So I would -- I would support the expenditure under the
circumstances.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Fiala. Anymore discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just a brief comment.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know what it is to take on the
Chairmanship of this group and the responsibility that goes with it.
And you have to have a certain amount of latitude as the Chairman to
be able to move when you think it's necessary.
I do agree with Commissioner Coyle that it wouldn't hurt maybe
if we had a little more discussion, but I don't feel like I was in the
dark about this at all. It was something that was very up front.
I was very curious at the time why Commissioner Henning was
willing to make it a personal expenditure. It didn't make any sense to
me. I thought at that point in time I would have greatly agreed to go
ahead and make it a -- serve the public purpose and direct it so at that
time. But I also am going to vote in favor of it for that reason.
Page 45
October 28, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The -- Commissioners, I --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Attorney has something to say.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: I was just going to indicate that if you have a
vote in favor of the motion on the floor, that the record reflect that
that is also an approval of the appropriate budget amendment to take
care of that experience.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I couldn't hear that, David.
MR. WEIGEL: I said -- pardon me, I'll speak up -- that if
there's a vote taken on the motion on the floor, I would expect that
you would endorse then the record to reflect any appropriate budget
amendment to take care of the expense approved by the motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then my motion includes that.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And my second does as well.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioners -- and Commissioner
Halas, I definitely didn't do this -- intend to interfere with your
district, but what I seen (sic) was taking Commissioners' comments
out of context or saying that it was the county's plan, and it was not
the county's plan, it definitely was the citizens' plan. But I didn't
mean to offend you, and I'll take that-- your comments under
consideration on any other further actions by myself.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 46
October 28, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4-1.
Item #9E
FLEISCHMAN PROPERTY DISCUSSION REGARDING THE
SIGNING OF A I,ETTER OF INTENT-APPROVED
MR. MUDD: That brings us to Item Number 9(E) and that's a
discussion of the Fleischman property. And Commissioner Coyle
asked for this item to be on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman and Board
members, as you know, the parcel of property owned by the
Fleischman family generally around the area of Golden Gate
Parkway and Goodlette Road, both north and south of Golden Gate
Parkway, has been considered for purchase by others with the
intention of development in that area.
The property, particularly north of Golden Gate Parkway, that
the County Manager is putting on the overhead right now has
particular interest to a number of entities.
First of all, the Conservation Collier Committee has looked at
this and evaluated its value from an environmental standpoint. And
some of this land, not all of it, but some of this land has good
environmental value.
The owner is unwilling to split it up. And from the standpoint of
the Collier Land Acquisition Committee, it would not be proper for
them to try to buy up all this land just to get a small portion that is
environmentally sensitive. But yet the county transportation
department has a need for some of this land for the intersection
improvement of Golden Gate and Goodlette Road. And they also
have expressed a need for water retention for -- that would benefit
both county and city residents.
The water retention capabilities here also address water quality;
Page 47
October 28, 2003
that is, if we have water retention areas where the water can be held
for a period of time, impurities can settle out before it drains into the
Gordon River and the Bay and the Gulf. And this is a fairly
important flowway for stormwater runoff.
So my interest today is to see if we can, as a group, get all the
entities involved who are interested in this piece of property. And
those entities would be the county government, particularly the
transportation department, South Florida Water Management
District, Conservation Collier. Perhaps even the Conservancy would
be interested in talking about some of the property even south of
Golden Gate Parkway and what we might be able to do to protect it.
And the purpose for getting together to deal with it, rather than
trying to deal with it piecemeal is essentially this: Let's presume that
we don't get together and we don't sit down and talk. Conservation
Collier will never even have an opportunity to purchase this property,
because it will be gone before they will have an opportunity to go
through it. And secondly, they can't afford to buy the whole parcel,
and the parcel isn't going to be split.
So my objective is not to suggest that we pay a high price for
this. I think we should be able to get this for what we think a
reasonable market value is. But it is to pool our efforts to see if there
is some way we can move forward with this property in an
expeditious manner, rather than waiting until it is too late and then
this property is lost forever.
So my request right now is essentially this: That we authorize
staff to try to pull together the entities who are interested in doing
this, sit down, have a meeting, talk about it, see if there's a way we
can work together, and if there is, let's -- let them come back to the
Board and their respective boards with some recommendations.
So I'm not asking for any action other than just to try to get this
coordinated so that we can develop a comprehensive proposal to the
Board and to the Conservation Collier, and to any other entity
Page 48
October 28, 2003
involved, Southwest Florida Water Management District and so
forth.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Manager?
MR. MUDD: Just to add a couple of things to Commissioner
Coyle's -- some recent correspondence that has transpired that the
Board needs to know about. And I think you probably got a copy of
this yesterday.
First of all, there's a letter from Norman Feder, the
transportation administrator, to Mr. Scott Cameron, basically talking
about the transportation's interest, along with the consortium of the
Big Cypress Basin, City of Naples, Conservation Collier to try to
purchase the property.
And in Norm's letter, he talks about the million dollars a year
coming from the Big Cypress Basin as part of the agreement that was
made for the South Golden Gate Estates, just to refresh the Board's
mind, that maybe that would be an opportunity to bond that million
dollars over that 20-year period in order to get the purchase. Because
the property -- the property appraised value is between 15 and $20
million, from what I've been told. It depends on who you talk to on
that particular item.
The next item, while we've been talking about that, there's a --
the interested client to build is a Steven Coleman from Royal Palm
Builders, and he's basically (sic) was going to buy the property from
Mr. Cameron and his clients. And he's been asked to hold off until
the county makes a decision.
The one piece of correspondence I really need to talk to you
about is a letter that came in to me yesterday from Mr. John
Passidomo, of Cheffy Passidomo Wilson and Johnson, Attorneys at
Law, and they represent the Fleischman owners of the property. And
he basically -- and in particular, Charles Fleischman III. He basically
talks about the length of time that he's had the property -- they've had
the property up on the block for sale.
Page 49
October 28, 2003
He basically says that they would be willing to start negotiations
with, and hold off on the Coleman purchase of the property, if the
Board or I, because it was addressed to me, give them a letter within
10 days, a letter of intent for the purchase, followed by a 30-day
contract negotiation, followed by a 30-day due diligence period of
time, followed by a 30-day closing period. And they believe that that
time period is fair and reasonable to all concerned parties.
So what I would say to you is, if you decide to have a workshop
or a gathering or direct the staff to get with all of those particular
entities to figure out if there's a joint interest and there's a way to
leverage some kind of cost share between all of those parties, that
you also either give myself or the Chairman the ability to send and
sign a letter of intent within 10 days of this period.
I'll try to get that meeting set up and -- so that we can -- so we
can get the negotiation and figure out really what the intent is and I
can fine tune some of the financial arrangements that need to be
made. That you authorize either the Chairman or the County
Manager to sign a letter of intent so we can start this process.
Because based on the letter, no letter of intent within 10 days, they're
going to sell the property.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion that we
authorize our Chairman Tom Henning to sign that letter.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta,
second by Commissioner Halas.
Clarification from the Board. Is -- with the Conservation 2002
and Transportation, some of that -- transportation needs, some of that
parcel is not going to be needed by maybe all entities. Is part of the
option is to parcel it off and sell it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: All options are open.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. All options open?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that -- by the way, if I could
Page 50
October 28, 2003
just clarify this. The motion addressed only a signing of a letter of
intent. You haven't gotten there yet.
Is there a motion to sanction even getting together and talking
about this to decide upon --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think we can do that in direction.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think right now the most
important thing is the letter of intent.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then we'll discuss what other
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
specify a sum of money?
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
to negotiation?
The letter of intent will not
No.
Okay. So that will all be subject
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We have to do two appraisals on this
property yet. And that's why Kevin was down here. You know,
"Boss, you got two appraisals". I said, "Yeah, the letter of intent,
you got 90 days. We'll get those two appraisals and do that process",
so--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Good.
MR. MUDD: But I would -- if we're really serious about this, I
think -- I think you need to go with the letter of intent and then -- and
then I'll get the parties together or I can get them -- either way I can
get the parties together and still do the letter of intent.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Okay, good.
MR. MUDD: I will say to you, Commissioners, this is the last
piece of open property as far -- if you're going to try to fix the
stormwater problems on Goodlette-Frank Road that go even north,
this is the -- this is the last property that you've got that's open
enough in order to do it. And if you look at the slide that's in front of
Page 51
October 28, 2003
you, you'll notice the green area, and the reason I showed the legend
is because the green area is hydric soils, okay, so that's wetlands.
And if you looked at some of the pictures in your packet, you
saw Gordon River upstream going across it. If you worked
stormwater retention in the upland area and collected it from
Goodlette, you'd have the ability to spread it, go through that riparian
zone to further purify the water before it went into the Gordon.
It's all part of the SWIM resolution that you approved here a
couple of months ago. It has everything to do with the new standards
that the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of
Environmental Protection wants to do. And at the same time,
Norman has plans to do that right lane extension through that
particular process.
So I think there's lots of folks that have -- have some need in
this property, and we need to discuss it quickly before it goes out and
somebody buys it out from under our nose.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that's another point, and I
think it's one reason to involve the City of Naples in this discussion.
Goodlette Road essentially blocks the natural flow of
stormwater from the west side of Goodlette Road, where there is a lot
of residential development, to the east side of Goodlette Road where
the natural flowway exists. There are -- there are wastewater -- or
stormwater drains underneath Goodlette Road that really don't lead
anywhere. In some cases they're clogged up on the other end, they're
undersized or whatever.
Now, there's an effort by the city, hopefully working with the
county, to improve that. But if you get the water from the west side
of Goodlette Road to the east side of Goodlette Road and it doesn't
have anywhere to go, it's not going to help anybody.
So there is a good reason, as the staff has already concluded, to
find some water retention areas, and this is probably the last place we
Page 52
October 28, 2003
can get it.
MR. MUDD: You also have -- if I may, one more thing. You
also have the ability to even get Parks involved in this. I mean, it's a
55-acre piece. If you have a stormwater lake, you could have a
walkway around it, you could have places for people to enjoy, and
you have that ability, too. So just because you set it aside for
stormwater doesn't mean that you can't add another piece of Collier
County ambiance to it for the enjoyment of our residents as far as
that park is concerned.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Mr. Weigel?
MR. MITCHELL: Could I make a comment on that?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
MR. MITCHELL: As you're putting together your time line,
the one thing that you want to factor in is if you're going to be
borrowing, I need a minimum of 45 days to be able to secure that
money.
So if you would, as you put that time line together, factor that
into the equation, okay? Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
In regard to the letter of intent and the intent of this Board for a
letter of intent to go out, County Manager indicated a process that
had been suggested, provided, required by Attorney Passidomo on
behalf of the Fleischman interest, and I would caution you, the letter
of intent may indicate an interest to go forward. The Conservation
Collier Committee itself does not meet again till November 10th.
So the coordination may not dovetail into the time frames that
successively follow that Mr. Passidomo has indicated.
Additionally, there -- in the use of Conservation Collier and that
aspect toward potentially providing partial funding toward a partial
part of that land and interest, it's a matching fund arrangement that
Page 53
October 28, 2003
comes into play and, again, may not lend itself to a rather-- what
would appear to be a rigid timetable that Mr. Passidomo has
provided.
I would suggest that the letter of intent, if we call it that, from
the Board -- and I think the Board has been pretty precise as to what
it wishes to do here -- will indicate a serious interest of the county,
but that the recipient of the letter, that is the property interest, the
Fleischman property interest, with their attorney, should recognize
that this is government and it has certain procedures that it must go
through, whether it's funding and financing, as Mr. Mitchell
indicates, or meeting with the appropriate county conservation group
empaneled to assist and provide a funding source toward part of the
interest that we have here, the need for appraisals that come back,
and ultimate action by the Board before an agreement is ultimately --
and a determination is ultimately made by the Board to go forward.
I do not believe that this letter of intent is an absolute indication
of a purchase, no matter what the price and the results of the
appraisals will be.
So I think that the letter should be couched carefully but still
indicating the very strong interest and outlining the activity that the
Board is anticipating and directing staff to do to achieve a result,
with the county resulting as a party of interest to purchase this real
property.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Maybe I--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I could, that's exactly the point
of getting everybody together. Because let's understand what will
happen if we don't get everybody together. The Conservation Collier
Committee will meet in November and they'll meet again in
December. They don't even have all the priorities established yet.
They haven't finalized the evaluations. And they can't finalize the
evaluations, even on this property, until they understand the cost.
And understanding the cost is part of this process, because so far
Page 54
October 28, 2003
they've been evaluating it under the assumption that there's not going
to be any assistance in the funding of this. If they understand,
through joint meetings with us, that there could be participation from
other agencies to share the cost of this, then they might be able to
move more quickly, it might surface as a more important piece of
property, and they might be able to reach a decision that this one is
going to be lost if you don't do it now.
And so there is no reason that they should feel compelled to
hold to some pre-established schedule in the face of new evidence
and new priorities.
So I would hope as an advisory committee they would recognize
the importance of this issue and then come to us in this meeting
prepared to reach some kind ofjoint arrangement that will solve what
is a very, very important problem for the entire community.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And they could also gather, you
know, before November 10th.
I'm sorry, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I was just going to add to
what you were just saying. They could have some emergency
meetings.
I think this time element is very important but also, too, I'm sure
that when it comes time to draft this letter of intent, that Chairman
Henning will be working very closely with the County Attorney
Office to make sure that it complies with all the legalities and make
sure we don't make promises that we can't fulfill.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, but have a firm commitment of
interest.
Do we have enough direction on this item? I know we've got a
motion, but do you need any further-- do you understand the
direction?
MR. MUDD: I think David's going to probably draft a letter of
intent, once I give him all these legal paperwork and things like that
Page 55
October 28, 2003
in order to get it done. And from what -- what I'm hearing is the
Chairman's going to sign that letter of intent and I will get a -- I will
get a meeting set up as fast as I can with all the parties.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion on the floor and a
second.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
We're going to take a 1 O-minute break for Commissioner Fiala,
to exercise her knee.
(Brief recess.)
Item #1 OB
PRESENT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCERNING THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH BRIGHTSTAR
ENVIRONMENTAL (FLORIDA), LLC PURSUANT TO RFP #02-
3316; MSW PROCESSING AND GASIFICATION FACILITY
AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER ACTIONS -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Next item is Number 10(B), which is present
findings and recommendations concerning the negotiations with
Brightstar Environmental Florida, LLC, pursuant to RFP No.
02-3316, Municipal Solid Waste Processing and Gasification
Facility, and recommendations for further actions. And Mr. DeLony,
Page 56
October 28, 2003
the Administrator for Public Utilities, will present.
MR. DeLONY: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Jim
DeLony, Public Utilities Administrator.
Before you is the executive summary for Item -- agenda Item
10(B).
I'm here primarily to report on the findings and
recommendations concerning our negotiations with the Brightstar
Environmental firm, LLC, pursuant to RFP 02-03316, MSW
Processing and Gasification Facility, but also to present
recommendations to you this morning related to other solid waste
management options.
The county purposely created a multi-disciplinary negotiations
team to ensure that the full breadth of county interests were
represented. Members of the negotiations team were Roy Anderson,
of Public Utilities Engineering, Lynn Wood, Purchasing Agent, Tom
Wides, Public Utilities Finance Director, Robert Zachary from the
County Attorney's Office, David Dee, Special Legal Counsel with
Landers and Parsons, public attorneys, Steve Schwartz, Director of
Solid Waste Programs from Malcolm Pirnie, Incorporated -- and
you'll be hearing later on today from Steve -- and George Yilmaz,
Solid Waste Management Director for Public Utilities.
Most members of that team are here today to answer any
questions that you may have during or after this presentation.
The Collier County Public Utilities division remains committed
to an integrated multi-faceted solid waste management program that
provides environmentally sound and cost-effective solid waste
management services for all of Collier County. The goal, as directed
by the Board of County Commissioners, is to map an effective and
efficient long-range strategy to provide solid waste management for a
period of 30 years or more.
As we execute this strategy, we never will lose sight and have
not lost sight of our continued need to stay in regulatory compliance,
Page 57
October 28, 2003
to meet the customers' demands and to build a highly skilled, well
trained and empowered team that provides that best value for our
customers.
Let me give you a brief recap of actions taken that have brought
us to this point today with regard to gasification. The county's
negotiation team requested a best and final price proposal from
Interstate Waste Technologies, or IWT, on 19 June, 2003. IWT
submitted their best and final price proposal on July 2nd, 2003, and
met with the negotiations team on 8 July, 2003.
The negotiations team concluded that the cost per ton contained
in IWT's proposal was significantly higher than the cost of the
county's current municipal solid waste disposal methods and the cost
of other contingency disposal methods that may be -- or options,
rather, that may be available to the county.
On the 29th of July, 2003, the negotiations team recommended
to the Board that we authorize staff to terminate our negotiations
with IWT and to commence negotiations with Brightstar. The Board
provided the requested authorization.
On 20 August, 2003, the negotiations team issued a letter to
Brightstar requesting additional information and clarification of their
proposal, and explanation of their current status. Brightstar
responded on 20 September, 2003, and as a result of Brightstar's
response, the negotiation team found their proposal to be
unacceptable.
Now, I'd like to introduce our technical consultant, Mr. Steve
Schwartz of Malcolm Pirnie, who is here to present to you the
findings concerning the negotiations with Brightstar pursuant to the
RFP, currently -- as previously referenced.
And also he'll be here, as well as other members of the team, to
answer any technical questions or any other questions you may have
on this.
I believe that you know Mr. Schwartz, but let me give you a
Page 58
October 28, 2003
little of his background once again. Mr. Schwartz is the Director of
Solid Waste Programs for Malcolm Pimie, Incorporated, which is a
nationally recognized environmental firm. He is a diplomate of the
American Academy of Environmental Engineers. He has been
involved in the professional practice of engineering for more than 30
years. He has been responsible for effective administration, design
and management and implementation of a wide range of planning,
recycling, landfill, composting and waste to energy projects. He's a
recognized international expert in solid waste management, as well
as a public author and lecturer in his field.
And with that, unless there's any questions from you, I will turn
the presentation over to Mr. Schwartz.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions by the Board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, please continue.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Commissioners, good morning. The
presentation today focuses primarily on one aspect of your solid
waste management program and that's the gasification component.
We will review the project time line, risk posture, negotiations
with Brightstar and staff findings. Further, we will revisit major
initiatives undertaken since the beginning of this program in
December, 2000 and consider other solid waste management options.
At the end of the presentation, Mr. DeLony will review the
negotiation team recommendations that will further the progress
made thus far and enable the county to achieve a best-in-class solid
waste management program.
Turning now to the time line. This time line shows that the
development of the long-range program has been deliberate and
systematic. The Board has provided strategic guidance at each
critical stage, and your continued interest and guidance is welcomed
today.
Page 59
October 28, 2003
It may appear that this progress has taken a long time, but it has
been consistent with Board guidance and it was necessary to move
deliberately and carefully and consider each alternative fully.
In addition, the county's own procurement code mandates a
deliberate, thoroUgh and open process. Although it did take more
than a year to prepare, issue and evaluate the gasification request for
proposals, we are here today to present our findings and
recommendations.
The Board has been involved in this process from the beginning,
through its direction to staff and key policy decisions made over the
last three years.
More recently, in June, 2001, the Board completed its
consideration of the long-term solid waste management technologies,
and in September, 2001, authorized staff to prepare and issue an RFP
for municipal solid waste gasification.
In November of 2001, we issued the municipal solid waste
gasification RFP, and in April of 2002, three proposals were
received. The proposals by IWT and Brightstar were deemed
responsive.
In March, 2003, after evaluating these proposals, the county's
selection committee ranked IWT first and Brightstar second and
presented those findings to this Board. And at that time, the Board
instructed the negotiations team to conduct best and final price
negotiations with IWT and then report back on the results.
We did conduct best and final price negotiations from IWT from
June -- in June, 2003. We got their best proposal in July of 2003 and
met with them -- with IWT soon thereafter. Ultimately the
negotiating team concluded that the cost per ton in IWT's proposal
was significantly higher than the cost of current municipal solid
waste disposal or of other alternatives the county could choose.
Therefore, in late July of 2003, the negotiating team
recommended to the Board to authorize staff to terminate
Page 60
October 28, 2003
negotiations with IWT and commence negotiations with Brightstar,
and the Board provided the requested authorization.
Negotiations with Brightstar commenced in August of 2003 and
were terminated in October of 2003. We had concerns, which we
previously discussed with you, about the continued viability of
Brightstar as a company and, therefore, we proceeded very
cautiously. The reasons for this caution will be discussed further in a
few minutes.
However, we think it's important to start by revisiting the
original guidelines for this project.
The county had recognized that, from the beginning, that
gasification was a new and innovative technology and had risks. To
minimize these risks, the procurement was always designed around
five key principles: First, the vendor was required to design, build,
own, operate and finance the facility.
Second, county responsibility was limited to providing 150,000
tons per year of municipal solid waste, the so-called put-or-pay
amount. Successful commercial operation of a facility was always
required as a condition precedent to executing a file contract. The
county's put-or-pay responsibility was never to become effective
unless and until the facility here in Florida, if it was ever built, was to
pass its acceptance test.
And last, the vendor was to post a bond payable to the county so
that the county would be reimbursed for its development costs should
the facility never achieve acceptance.
So those were the principles under which we were operating.
As stated a moment ago, negotiations with Brightstar were brief.
The first phase of negotiation consisted of simply sending a letter to
Brightstar to determine the details of their financial situation. We'd
all seen newspaper articles mentioning their situation, but we wanted
to be sure we had all the facts.
MR. MUDD: And if I can interrupt, Mr. Bob Krasowski also
Page 61
October 28, 2003
provided those particular articles to the Board, so he helped us in that
process to alert us to that fact.
MR. SCHWARTZ: So in August of 2003, we sent a letter-- the
selection committee sent a letter to Brightstar requesting
clarifications and explanations of the operational status of the
Woolagong facility in Australia. And also the company's then
current overall financial status.
Brightstar responded in September of 2003. We discussed and
considered their response and found it unacceptable.
The Woolagong facility continues to not have achieved
commercial operations as yet, and the financial criteria that were in
the RFP can no longer be met by Brightstar because of their financial
setbacks.
So that's disappointing. We were all disappointed by that. But
it's important to remember that gasification has always been only one
component of the county's solid waste management program.
Starting in December of 2000, the county embarked on an
ambitious program to address existing issues and to search for
progressive solid waste solutions in the intermediate and long term.
And above all else, the program has always focused on preserving
and extending the capacity of the Naples landfill.
Let's revisit briefly an overview table that you've seen before.
We will continue to update this table as the solid waste management
program progresses. It's important to note that many of these
initiatives are interrelated.
The short-range initiatives shown in this table have been
accomplished and the intermediate range initiatives have either been
completed or are underway. The long-range initiatives include items
that have either been completed, are underway or being suggested
today.
Permit me to digress a moment in looking at this before I
discuss other long-range alternatives. I want to remind the county,
Page 62
October 28, 2003
this and previous boards, a host of dedicated staff and consultants, I
want to remind everyone how far the county has come in just a few
years and how much has already been accomplished.
Three years ago the county had a landfill that was in danger of
being closed immediately by the state and, in any case, had less than
three years of lifetime left. Today odor problems are under control,
permitted life exceeds 15 years, and diversion of things like biomass
and C&D and recycling and biosolids, diversion rates of up to 50
percent have been achieved. These are significant accomplishments.
Although it's turned out that gasification is not the right
technology at this time, the county still has other options to consider
to help it achieve its goal of providing econo--environmentally
sound, cost effective solid waste management services to the county's
citizens for the next 30 years or more.
Some of the suggested solid waste management program
enhancements include three items: Landfill gas to energy, a
materials recovery facility, and competitive collection negotiation --
competitive collection contract procurement. Let's examine those
three elements.
The landfill gas to energy project we've discussed here before.
It involves taking methane from the landfill, burning it, generating
electric power.
Although we've discussed it before, on March 1 lth, 2003, the
landfill gas to energy project was placed on hold. And that was
because we were considering the use of that landfill gas in the MSW
gasification project.
Nevertheless, even though we placed it on hold, staff has
favorably reviewed the technical feasibility of the landfill gas to
energy project, and believes it is still in the best interest of the
county. The financial viability of the project will be assessed
through ongoing contract negotiations with the vendor.
The benefits of this project include: The effective collection
Page 63
October 28, 2003
and management of methane gas from the landfill, the Naples
landfill; reduction in emissions by not using flares to burn the gas;
reductions in emissions that would otherwise be generated by fossil
fuel combustion to generate the power that this system would
generate; and reuse of an otherwise wasted resource.
It should be noted that any program designed to optimize the
beneficial use of landfill gas might be inconsistent and might be in
conflict with a program designed to eliminate odors from the landfill.
For this reason, the project will only be developed with the same
contractor who is responsible for odor management and responsible
for landfill gas collection, and that project will be developed to give
the priority to odor control.
The second element to discuss is the materials recovery facility,
single stream MRF, as it's described here. To better evaluate a single
stream MRF, a feasibility assessment is needed. This assessment
would also include an assessment of other non-single stream
possibilities.
What is a single stream MRF? A single stream MFP integrates
the collection and processing components of recycling into the most
economical methods. All recyclable materials are collected in one
stream, in one container, if you will. All recyclables, such as metals,
glass, junk mail, mixed paper and other co-mingled recyclables can
be put in one recycling container with a lid and wheels and then
collected and delivered to the single stream MRF, to the processing
facility, where they are separated into recoverable materials.
This technology and process is proven and has been successfully
implemented in other communities nationwide. The specific benefits
include that it's cost effective; that it increases the recycling rates, of
course, of all generated classes; that it centralizes the processing of
recyclables; that the separation of recyclables is convenient and not
burdensome to the customer; that it maximizes the quantity and
quality of recyclables; and that it may not require regulatory
Page 64
October 28, 2003
enforcement -- the new ordinances, i.e. mandatory recycling -- it may
not require that if the volunteer program produces adequate recycling
rates.
Perhaps the greatest benefit of this program is the ability to
reduce reliance on the Naples landfill, to dispose of materials that can
be separated and reused. The net effect of this process would be to
extend the disposal capacity of the landfill.
The last element is the collection contract, which is integral with
the materials recovery facility. The current franchise collection
contract expires in 2006. The county plans to issue request for
proposals to solicit bids for a new franchise contract. The county can
capitalize on this procurement by requesting services that support
new initiatives such as the materials recovery facility just discussed.
The benefits of this approach include the following: A safer
collection program for customers and contractors, because of using
wheeled containers; increased recycling and waste minimization; an
increased efficiency because of fewer trucks on the road, elimination
of specialized vehicles and elimination of compartmentalized
containers.
This concludes my presentation. I'll turn this back to Mr.
DeLony to review our recommendations. Thank you.
MR. DeLONY: Again, for the record, I'm Jim DeLony, Public
Utilities Administrator.
Commissioners, you have before you an executive summary that
makes the following recommendations concerning the gasification
project and solid waste management options to follow on to our
recommend -- to -- as we move forward.
First is to authorize the staff to notify Brightstar that the county
does not wish to proceed further with negotiations, and authorize
staff to terminate its activities pursuant to the RFP dealing with the
processing and gasification facility.
Secondly, authorize the staff to recommence with Waste
Page 65
October 28, 2003
Management, Incorporated of Florida, concerning the development
of the landfill gas to energy facility at the Naples landfill, pursuant to
the landfill operations agreement. That's our existing agreement with
Waste Management we have in force now.
Thirdly, authorize the staff to assess the feasibility of using a
single stream materials recovery facility for processing recyclable
materials for residential, multi-family and commercial customers,
and, if feasible, authorize staff to issue a suitable request for
proposals.
Fourth, authorize staff to prepare a request for proposals for
solid waste franchise collection contracts, and staff will present final
RFP document for Board's review and approval.
Finally, number five, authorize staff to utilize the county's
utility engineering consultants, including Malcolm Pimie,
Incorporated, and special legal counsel Landers and Parsons, Public
Attorneys, to assist with the implementation of these
recommendations.
Commissioners, thank you for your attention and ongoing
guidance to this process of refining our long-range integrated solid
waste management program. I think we all have worked very hard,
diligently and deliberately over the past three years to reach this
point where we are.
We believe the recommendations are technically and
scientifically sound and economically feasible, and will certainly
sustain environmental compliance requirements as the first priority.
We're now asking you to approve these recommendations, as
outlined in the executive summary in the agenda package before you,
and that will enable, I believe, this county to meet its mandate to
achieve 30 years or more of landfill capacity through implementation
of the proposed integrated solid waste management program. We will stay here for your questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the Commissioners?
Page 66
October 28, 2003
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. So far, from what I
understand, the commercial recycling, the volunteer commercial
recycling, has really not taken off at all. So with regard to number
three here, the single stream MRF, how is that going to affect us
when we can't seem to get the commercial entities on board?
MR. DeLONY: I think that the export -- you authorizing me to
move forward with this study will begin to answer just that question,
ma'am.
I'm back in here in January to give you a report out on the 18th
month evaluation program that you put us on in January with the
Chamber. And at that time, we'll be able to address your question
probably with more, in terms of our experiences and the data that we
collected during that 18-month period.
So to answer you directly today, I don't know. I think that
certainly raises a question that we'll be answering during the
conducting of our study and as we would prepare the RFP for that
single stream -- single stream materials recovery facility. Did I answer your question?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, you did, and I have a second
part that --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner--
MR. DeLONY: Mr. Mudd has something.
MR. MUDD: If I may add. If your volunteer program -- and
let's say residential and commercial
out the recyclable items out of their
recycling-- and everybody takes
trash and they do it diligently.
Everybody, bar none. You wouldn't need a single stream MRF,
material recovery facility, okay? Because what happens at that
facility is you get a lot of hand picking, okay? People unload the
garbage, you'll have some conveyor belts, you'll have some magnetic
separators and eddy separators, but there's some hand picking of
trash, plastic bottles out and stuff like that that people didn't
Page 67
October 28, 2003
voluntarily put over to the side.
So if every -- in a pure state, if everybody recycled and did it
diligently and they put all 21 or 27 recyclables in their bin, if
residential, and the commercial separated their bottles, their cans,
their plastics, their cardboard, their paper and did everything like
that, including our schools, okay, we wouldn't need a MRF facility.
Okay?
But I'm telling you, in a pure world, we're not, okay? And some
people will take the easy way out, some people will say it's
commercially not viable -- and I think we've heard those words
before -- and if that's the case then a single serv -- single source
MRF, material recovery facility, will get at those particular items for
you. And I think that further answers your question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, it does. We discussed
yesterday, I didn't even realize that it was hand picking all of that
stuff apart out of garbage. And I thought, man, that would be really a
tough job.
But anyway, I wanted to know if we were going to be adding
styrofoam to our recyclables. I know we always take ours to Publix
because that isn't something that the county now recycles, but doesn't
that take 100 years to disintegrate or something like that? Somebody
gave me that figure. So I was wondering if we were going to be
adding that to our recycling.
MR. DeLONY: Certainly, ma'am, we'll take a look at that, both
the feasibility and the economics of doing that, per your direction.
MR. MUDD: And the -- and the other thing you have to do
with recyclables, because you're absolutely right, it takes a long time
to degrade in structure, okay? And in some cases it doesn't.
Right now we encourage -- well, short commercial break-- we
encourage people to take their styrofoam, may it be their egg cartons
or their meat platters, once they wash them off, take them back to
Publix or the supermarket they got them from and they will try to
Page 68
October 28, 2003
recycle those styrofoam items. If-- and I've noticed all over the
street, I get these little peanuts, you know these packing peanuts that
are styrofoam? If people would quit throwing those things in the
trash can and put them in a clean plastic bag and take them to
Mailboxes Are Us, they will take them from you and reuse them so it
creates less of a demand to make new ones, okay? So they'll reuse
that for you, and that's another opportunity. And I've done it
personally, and in every case they've been more than willing. The
only thing they ask you is, is it clean styrofoam? Yes it is. And they
take it right from you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: To piggyback on Commissioner
Fiala's questions, have we looked at in the area -- the possibility in
the area of where people don't like to recycle that we get involved in
dirty MRF?
MR. DeLONY: That certainly would be one of the options.
Mr. Mudd spoke to you here about a dirty MRF operation where
everything goes on one conveyor belt and then you either move it out
by magnetics, gravity or air or hand picking, and you get those
recyclables out. And then you only go to the hill with what you
cannot recycle. You know, full filterization, let's call it that way.
That would be one of the options. There is not -- we'll look at
that. And we're going to also look at what would be a clean
operation where we just take all the recyclables, put them in one
stream and put the garbage in another. And we don't do that.
I'm going to come back and talk to you about the plusses and
minuses of both. There's a question of cost, question of feasibility,
levels of service and so on. There's going to be some tradeoffs in
that, how we would pass those additional costs on to our customers.
So that would be one of the things I'd like to do in this RFP as
we bring it forward to you for consideration.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
Page 69
October 28, 2003
MR. DeLONY: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I just -- if you don't mind, I'd like to
go next.
I don't -- I know that our staff is not trying to mislead our -- the
Commissioners, but for everybody's information, commercial
pickups include multi-family, which there is a lot of in Collier
County. And so, you know, I don't know where the unrecyclables
are going in the commercial, whether it's, you know, commercial,
commercial businesses or multi-family.
MR. DeLONY: As you know, that's part of our study that we're
looking at, is how best to proceed with that mandatory ordinance for
commercial recycling -- or continuing it to voluntary. We're looking
at answering the question you just proposed, sir, and we've been
doing that at Board direction.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The other one -- recommendation
No. 4, authorize the staff for an RFP for a solid waste franchise
collection. Amen. It's about time that we did that here in Collier
County.
I believe it's Lee County that has two different collection
districts, or one county to the north. There must be a reason for that.
Can we take a look at that?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, we'll take a look at that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And let us know if that's what the
Board should do?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. It will be one of the options. We'll
bring to you a single district or multi-districts as we do that proposal.
It will be one of the options we'll explore with you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would just like to emphasize a
statement in the fiscal impact for this agenda item. The only fiscal
Page 70
October 28, 2003
impact at this time are budgeted expenditures for the county staff and
consultants. No long-term commitments or major capital
expenditures will be undertaken at this time.
So with that understanding, I would be willing to move approval
of these recommendations.
MR. DeLONY: Sir, I hope that you understand, we intend to
come back with every step of this process to this Board. And every
major decision that I do not have express Board approval or
direction, I guarantee you, we're going to be back in here and asking
you, or at least providing you the options for a decision. We don't --
we're not going forward without the Board shoulder-to-shoulder with
staff on this, I can assure you that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion on the floor.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And there's a second. And we do
have a public speaker.
Any further questions by the Board of Commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please call up the first public
speaker.
MS. FILSON: Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good morning, Cornrnissioners. Once
again, Bob Krasowski, Zero Waste Collier County group.
Commissioners, we've just gone through a multi two-year plus
process of evaluating pyrolysis as what was once called a core
element in the program for solid waste management of Collier
County. We spent well over a million dollars pursuing this path of
the taxpayers' money. There's been no attention given to what has
been requested by the citizenry, the people that have taken the time
and the effort to organize and come up here and speak directly to you
for an accommodation to bring in qualified experts to address our
Page 71
October 28, 2003
needs under the umbrella of the zero waste strategy -- application of
the zero waste strategy.
Now gasification has proven -- has failed, this effort has failed.
You've had people up here telling you about all the opportunities that
there were in this regard. Your.consultant, Malcolm Pirnie, has been
an advocate out in the public for gasification, and we believe you're
not getting a full spectrum of options that are available to you, to the
community.
So once again, I'll ask you, if you decide to pursue these
recommendations, to include, first and foremost, that an RFP be
developed for zero waste so we can have a greater input, a more
diverse input of ideas to address our solid waste management issue.
To not do this, it just baffles me. We've gone through this,
we've brought this forward to you -- Zero Waste Collier County
Group has brought it forward to you time and time again. And we've
shared many bits of information, documentation, we've brought --
actually had a workshop, a design charette here in Collier County
that the county participated in, the County Manager attended, Mr.
DeLony attended.
And the point being that many of these ideas have proven to be
valid. The things that were mentioned at the zero waste workshop
design charette are partially implemented in what is being done,
aside from this pyrolysis.
So pyrolysis is no more. It's been a waste of time, a waste of
money. We spoke against it before you even went to Australia.
There's been misinformation, propaganda as to the opportunity that
pyrolysis in Australia represented, even in the newspaper. When you
got back from Australia, they were saying, oh, the Aussies got it right
in an editorial. Well, that facility in Australia never, ever reached
commercial operation. So it didn't work, you know.
So now I'm looking to you to do something that will expand the
quality of your inquiry into what our options are. We could help
Page 72
October 28, 2003
you. Zero Waste Collier County Group would be willing to sit down
with the county and work out an RFP for zero waste, bring it back to
you, an invitation for the people that are knowledgeable on these
techniques and processes, to look at what's happening in Collier
County and give us an offering of what they might do for us, okay?
And I would just like you to include that. And before you move
forward with these, have that zero waste analysis.
Malcolm Pirnie has -- they're experts in certain elements of this,
we've praised them before for their ability to place landfills,
incinerators, pyrolysis facilities. They are not the expert when it
comes to alternative methods, the details on waste minimization
strategies, collection strategies. We should have a zero waste person
in Gary Liss (phonetic) here. He has just finished a project in
Hawthorne, California where they set up the collection strategy,
which keeps a number of collectors working. And they're not
allowed to buy one another out so, you know, so it protects the
interest of the county. Someone with that ability and knowledge
should be included.
Zero Waste Collier County, the people of Zero Waste Collier
County have provided leadership on the solid waste issue to Collier
County for years. There's a videotape of the people who are now in
Zero Waste Collier County, of an interview we did with Pete Scoville
in the '80s, where all these techniques and processes were looked at.
And examples of how they were working in Germany were on the
television while myself and Pete Scoville discussed it. I could make
available to you a copy of that tape, and you could see, for proof, that
we've been on the cutting edge, on the front of this, and even though
we're just common American citizens, we have as much authenticity
and validity as the expert engineers that we have here in Mr.
Schwartz.
Thank you for your attention to my comments.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Page 73
October 28, 2003
Mr. DeLony, looking at Zero Waste of Collier County's flow
chart, do we collect commercial and residential waste? Do we
collect commercial and residential waste? MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we collect horticultural waste?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we compost horticultural waste?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we collect clean recyclables?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we collect C&D?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. We actually divert it once we collect
it. Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's --
MR. DeLONY: Many of these items we do as well, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- through a vendor?
MR. DeLONY: Right. Or vendors.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And we do have a landfill?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So we have accomplished quite a bit
what Bob has asked us to do?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And he ought to be commended for
that.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Without his input and direction, we
might have been somewhere else.
So I commend you for your input. Thank you.
There's a motion on the floor and there's a second. Is there any
other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor, signify by
Page 74
October 28, 2003
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Any opposed?
Motion carries unanimously.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Next item is?
Item #1 OD
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSSIONERS DETERMINE WHETHER COLLIER
COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES SHALL
CONTINUE TO PROVIDE OUT-OF-COUNTY TRANSPORTS
FOR NAPLES COMMUNITY HOSPITAL HEALTHCARE
SYSTEM FACILITIES AND RATIFICATION OF PRIOR LETTER
AGRF, F, MFiNT- APPROVFD W/STIPI JTI~ATIONS
MR. MUDD: 10(D). And that's a recommendation that the
Board of County determine whether Collier County Emergency
Medical Services shall continue to provide out-of-county transports
for Naples Community Hospital health care system facilities and
ratification of prior letter agreement. And it will be presented by Mr.
John Dunnuck, Administrator for Public Services.
MR. DUNNUCK: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, John Dunnuck, Public Services Administrator.
I want to give you a brief overview of why we are bringing this
issue to your attention. Approximately -- and the executive summary
Page 75
October 28, 2003
covers a big portion of this -- but approximately a year ago, we
started to take a look at our response times county-wide from an
EMS transport standpoint. And we started to recognize that, you
know, one of the things we were doing through our capital
programming, through the AUIR, is we determine by population and
indirectly through response times how many units to create into the
system.
And as we went through that process, we started to recognize
that we have an awful lot of emergency transports from the hospital
to an out-of-county hospital in itself. It's not where we're taking it to
the hospital, but once a patient is at the hospital, diagnosis is made
and then they're using our transport service to take it out of county.
As part of that process, that was to the tune of about 170. Well,
what that does from a programming standpoint is either, one, we
have to recognize these transports and then we have to build the
system around that or, as the Board has directed, they've asked us to
take a hard look at areas where we're required to take on some of
these expenditures or -- and make a decision from a business
standpoint of whether to continue it or not. And that's the issue that
we, frankly, have brought before the Board of County
Commissioners today.
Historically we have provided this service, and we've done so
with NCH, where we've provided the emergency transport service
out of county. And as such, where we're at right now is, is do we
make that hard decision to continue and provide the system in that
respect?
You know, this is the -- excuse me, let me take a moment here
and take a breath. But, you know, from our standpoint, we want to --
you know, we approached NCH and we said, you know, we don't
think we can legally -- we don't think we're legally required to
provide this service. And if we're not legally required to provide this
service, then we should have an agreement with the Board of County
Page 76
October 28, 2003
Commissioners. We couldn't find the Board of County
Commissioners.
Jim Mudd then had a meeting with the CEO, Ed Morton, of
NCH back in April and said we don't believe that the taxpayers
should be fitting the bill to provide this service from that standpoint.
And asked them in a letter -- and it's provided in your backup
documentation -- to have 60 days to either look at having a private
carrier from NCH provide that ambulance service to the
out-of-county hospitals, or if we worked out an agreement where
they would be payer of last resort, which means that Collier County
would continue to provide the service, but then at the end we would
go ahead and bill for that service.
And at the staff level discussion, we were meeting with their
staff, and we opted for the latter, where we would continue to
provide the service but we would bill them the 100 percent for that.
That service continued and we provided it. We then billed the
hospital for that service, which was to the tune of-- the first billing
was to the tune of about $170,000. And it hadn't been paid. So we
had a meeting in June between myself, Mr. Morton, Mr. Page and
Ms. Dolan. And we sat down -- and we were discussing other issues
at the time -- but we sat down and discussed, you know, where we
were going with the payment service. At that time, Mr. Morton had
authorized to pay that $170,000. He did indicate that he was
concerned about it. It was a service that we had provided historically
and that we would go ahead and should we continue.
He was going to authorize his staff to take a look at other
jurisdictions, because he didn't think statutorily it was an issue, that
he thought that we may be statutorily be required to do it. We didn't
think we were.
We subsequently went and got a legal opinion from our
attorney's staff and they said that no, we are not legally required to
provide this service. And I have Ms. Robinson here, who can give
Page 77
October 28, 2003
you that explanation.
At the same token, the NCH did provide us a list of other
jurisdictions where they didn't think that this was occurring, where
there was a payer of last resort.
We took in and looked at those numbers, and we came to the
conclusion that we had some concerns about that information they
had provided. We went back ourselves and looked at other
jurisdictions and we, in fact, have verified that, through verbal
agreements, there's no written agreements between other hospitals
and EMS departments, but that there were other jurisdictions who
were paying, including Lee County, the Lee Memorial system where
the Lee County EMS bills Lee Memorial as the payer of last resort
and they do go ahead and pay that. And I have this backup that I can
provide on the visualizer, an e-mail from the director of EMS to that
respect.
So the issue you have before you today, frankly, is an issue of
do you want to continue at a policy level decision to provide this
transport out of county after a patient has come to the local hospital?
And if so, do you want to require them to enter into an
agreement to be the payer of last resort?
The final issue that we're requesting, too, is to verify the
agreement that we had sent out in April, which was the letter written
from the County Manager to NCH system that says this is how we're
going to continue service. And the reason we asked that at this point
in time is because we've billed for approximately $199,000 and we
have not received payment for that service that's been provided.
We recognize this is a policy level decision. We want to put it
in front of the County Commission for a decision today. And we'll
be happy to answer any questions that you may have in that respect.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any question by the Board
members?
(No response.)
Page 78
October 28, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, we got some public
speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir, we have four.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What about Mr. Saunders?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, he's a public speaker, I think.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, forgive me.
MS. FILSON: Yeah. Burt Saunders is the first one.
MR. SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commission
members. My name is Burt Saunders. I'm an attorney with the law
firm of Woodward, Pires and Lombardo. I'mhere representing
Naples Community Hospital. We do have a couple of other speakers,
but I want to kind of lay the foundation here for just a moment.
First of all, it's the desire of NCH to work with Collier County
to help protect the health, safety and welfare of our citizens. That's
never a question.
In terms of paying bills and that sort of thing, there's been a
little bit of discussion about that, and I would like to say for the
record that NCH does pay its bills. You don't have to worry about
whether -- if it's a legitimate bill, whether that's going to be paid.
I want you to understand a couple of things about this. First of
all, there are a couple of things that the staff has done that are
somewhat troubling.
First of all, there is an agreement between Collier County and
NCH to deal with the inter-facility transports. And that's transports
from one NCH facility to another NCH facility. A lot of those
transports are, quite frankly, for the convenience of a physician, for
the convenience of a patient, or for the convenience of the hospital.
And there's an agreement whereby NCH pays 100 percent of the cost
of an EMS unit that's available with a crew. And when that transport
is necessary, they call that unit and the unit does the transport, and
there's no additional charge for that.
Now, what's a little troubling here is that Collier County
Page 79
October 28, 2003
terminated that agreement unilaterally while these discussions were
going on.
Another thing that -- and we'll have some testimony to this
effect that's a little bit troubling -- is the issue of the out-of-county
transports, where a patient is delivered to an NCH facility, but that's,
quite frankly, the wrong facility for that patient and an EMS unit is
called for that out-of-county transport.
The thing that's troubling that your staff has done, have said --
they have said to NCH, if you don't guarantee the payment of the
non-paying customers that are transported out of county, then Collier
County EMS will not transport anyone from an NCH facility out of
county.
Now, NCH sent a check to Collier County for $171,000. They
did that pursuant to an agreement. They did that because they
wanted to make sure that no citizen of Collier County and no visitor
to Collier County would be put in jeopardy.
We have the scenario, as an example -- we'll talk about this in a
few minutes -- of a young kid who falls off a bicycle, hits their head
on the pavement and winds up at an NCH facility. Well, if that
patient needs a pediatric neurosurgeon, for example, or needs to be in
the Lee Memorial trauma center or in the Lee Memorial Childrens
Hospital, that patient has to be transported. That's a medically
necessary transport. This is not for anybody's convenience, this is for
the safety of our children, of our citizens. If they have to be
transported, they have to be transported.
And your staff has said, we're not going to transport anyone if
you don't guarantee those that are not paying. Well, that's great for
business, you get to collect all the paying customers and get
somebody else to pay for the non-paying customers. That's just not
right.
Now, there are three points that I want to make: Number one, in
terms of the 60-day agreement that's in your executive summary,
Page 80
October 28, 2003
NCH has already paid $171,000 and they're going to honor that
60-day agreement. That means that patients that were transported
out of county during that 60-day period who do not pay you, NCH
will pay. You can deduct that from the $171,000 that was paid, and
the balance should be refunded to NCH.
Number two, NCH will cooperate completely with your upper
payment limit issues. Now, there are a lot of big ticket items here
and there's been a lot of discussion of, well, will NCH negotiate and
deal with that. I'm here to tell you that they will. They want to
cooperate with you. That's a win situation for the taxpayers of
Collier County. It's a win for the County Commission. And -- but I
want you to understand, that's not a win necessarily for NCH. They
don't get anything out of that, they just cooperate, and they will do
that.
Number three, NCH will not guarantee the payment of
out-of-county transports that are not paid for by the customers. NCH
is not in the transporting business. Collier County is. And I don't
understand the logic that says these citizens of Collier County or
these visitors of Collier County that need to be transported for a
medically necessary reason, that NCH should be the payer of last
resort. I don't understand the logic of that.
Now, there's been some discussion about what other hospitals
are doing. Quite frankly, they're all over the board. I was told by the
Florida Hospital Association that no other counties were requiring
hospitals to do this. I was quick to repeat that, but that was incorrect.
Because again, they're all over the boardwalk on this.
There are lots of hospital systems around the state that have
their own ambulances for inter-facility and out-of-county transports,
there are a lot of hospital systems that don't pay anything, and there
are some hospital systems that have agreements with private hospital
or EMS providers to make those payments.
So, you know, the issue of what's the law on this, you know, is
Page 81
October 28, 2003
your county attorney correct that you have no legal responsibility? I
don't think anybody can answer that question, quite frankly. I will
tell you that, again, it's all over the ballpark.
So again, we will honor the 60-day agreement. NCH will
cooperate fully with you on the payment limit issue, but we want to
maintain the status quo on the inter-facility agreement and we want
to maintain the status quo on the out-of-county transport.
There's several people here that want to testify on behalf of
NCH to let you know what's happening on the ground. Because I
think you need to know this.
We're all very proud of our EMS system here and you should be
very proud of what we have here in terms of our Emergency Medical
Services system. But there are some problems there, and I think you
need to hear these.
I'd like to introduce Dr. Allen Weiss, who is President of the
NCH Healthcare System. He's a practicing physician, he's practiced
here in this community for over 20 years. And then he's going to
introduce Rosemary LeBailly and Gail Dolan, who are nurses
working in administration at Naples Community Hospital.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker, please?
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Dr. Allen Weiss. He will be
followed by Gail Dolan.
DR. WEISS: Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, my name is
Allen Weiss. Thank you for hearing us.
I'm representing, as you heard, NCH Healthcare System. Just to
give an idea of the number of people we see in the two hospital
system emergency rooms is about 110,000 people a year. Cleveland
Clinic also sees people in their emergency room. My guess is, in
general, one out of three people in our county visit our emergency
room each year, which is very significant. Of these people, the
majority are cared for in the emergency room or in our hospitals.
However, patients who have significant trauma, pelvic -- broken
Page 82
October 28, 2003
hips, broken pelvises, patients who have significant bums and
children, as you just heard, need to be transported to other facilities
where we don't have the facilities to take care of these folks.
In terms of the quality of the care we provide, we just went
through our triennial Joint Commission of Hospital Accreditation
Organization evaluation, got a 96, so we're taking care of people we
can take care of. But we also have to have transportation available,
which has traditionally been available to us.
During the 23 years that I've practiced clinically, we never had a
problem getting patients who were inappropriate for our care to other
facilities where the care was more appropriate, be it Fort Myers
trauma center, be it over to Miami, be it up to Tampa.
We have specific examples that I'd like to share with you with
my colleagues, Mrs. Gail Dolan, who's Vice President of Clinical
Operations and Mrs. Rosemary LeBailly, who is our Department
Director of our North Collier Emergency Room. And I would like to
ask them to join me and just with some specific examples of patients
who have been in our ER who need to be transported elsewhere.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Weiss, are you done speaking?
DR. WEISS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We'll go to the next public speaker.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Gail Dolan. She will be
followed by Rosemary LeBailly.
MS. DOLAN: Good morning, and thank you for letting us
speak this morning.
I just have two issues. One is time and the other one would be
money. We have entered into an agreement with Collier County
EMS where we try to use other services if we have to transport out of
county, but what that means for the emergency department is time.
So we pulled about 10 -- we just happened to pull 10 random
pediatric cases that were seen in our emergency department between
April and September of this year. Most of them were August and
Page 83
October 28, 2003
September of this year. And what happens is it takes anywhere from
three to seven hours to transport, on an average of about five hours,
to get these kids to another facility. And that is after multiple phone
calls of who is going to take the child out of county.
I personally have spoken to the director of EMS regarding
transports out. Now, let me just tell you, it's a two-prong issue. One
is, if there's a life and death situation, EMS comes right away, never
a problem.
The issue here, however, is when we have pediatric or trauma
cases that we stabilize and we have to transport out, time is -- could
be of essence. And nobody knows what could happen to that patient,
but especially pediatric patients, what could -- how that child could
deteriorate in a short period of time. It takes us time to get -- because
EMS does -- claims that they don't have another vehicle to send out
of county.
I personally have been asked, where do you live, I'll take the
ambulance that's covering your neighborhood out to transport up to
another fac -- you know, another county.
So our stance is, surely there must be a way that EMS -- and it's
never been a problem until these last two years -- could call for an
ambulance to transport one of these sick children or trauma patients.
That's one issue, time.
But money is the other. Collier County wants us to be to be the
payer of last -- us, I mean Naples Community -- wants us to be the
payer of last resort when they can't collect. Well, is that Naples
Community Hospital's responsibility or is it the Collier County's
responsibility? Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Rosemary LeBailly.
MS. LeBAILLY: Commissioners, I'm here to represent the
children of Collier County.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And your name, for the record?
Page 84
October 28, 2003
MS. LeBAILLY: Rosemary LeBailly.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I represent my child, okay?
MS. LeBAILLY: And well you should.
One of the hardest things for an emergency room nurse is to
have a critical child that you're caring for and know that children are
very different, they're not just little people, they're individuals. And
they're pretty unique because they can tolerate things a whole lot
better than an adult can. But suddenly they can hit bottom, and they
can do it in the drop of a hat. And when they do, they need to be in a
facility that can handle those needs.
To have to wait and watch the clock and watch the vital signs of
a child and worry that you have a tremendously long time where that
child could go down the tubes is something that none of us would
ever want to have for our own child.
The sad thing is, the reality is, we are going to lose a child. And
I hope it's not one of my grandchildren or one of your children or one
of your grandchildren. But the reality is, for a child we need time,
and we need it to be very quick time. And so we ask that you help us
to get that quick time for our children. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is for staff. About what is the
billing, total billing per year in regards to providing ambulance
service for NCH?
MR. DUNNUCK: For out of county, the transports that we're
talking about today?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just total transportation costs. Do
you have a breakdown of what the total transportation costs are?
Whether it's transporting them from the Naples Community Hospital
up to North Naples or for -- total transportation costs.
MR. DUNNUCK: Well, let me answer that two ways: One, as
Senator Saunders indicated, we have an inter-facility agreement --
and I want to speak to that and answer that question that was raised
Page 85
October 28, 2003
earlier -- in which they pay approximately $199,000 a year for that
ambulance. It's a dedicated unit. It doesn't go to normal transports.
Then you have the emergency transports out of county. Last
year we did approximately 170 of those. Our estimated -- after we
have billed the patient, the estimated bill that we would give to NCH
beyond that is about 4 to $500,000. It's give or take. It's an inexact
science.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what is the cost to buy an
ambulance?
MR. DUNNUCK: I believe our unit cost is $700,000 -- Mr.
Page is here to answer that question -- to get it up and running.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It seems to me that what they need
to do is buy their own ambulance and transport the patients. And
then when they need to -- we have somebody that's critically ill and
we have the life support system on board an ambulance, they can
contract us and just pay us for the service.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Dunnuck, I think this has
really gone far enough. I'm worried about the health, safety and
welfare of this community. And if one of you warring factions get
down to winning your way, somebody might lose out along the way.
I want you to come up with a settlement and I'd like it to be today.
The interlocal -- the agreement we got with them now, we
supply them an ambulance to use for local use. Would you explain
that in a little bit of detail? And I've got another part of the question
I want to ask you. How does that work, again?
MR. DUNNUCK: Sure. Right now -- and Mr. Page can give
you exact details on it -- but right now we swap and they put on one
person on it, we put a paramedic on the ambulance. It's a Collier
County EMS ambulance that they pay approximately $199,000 for
their transports between their local hospitals here. It's at their
disposal. We program in the positions and so forth and we recoup
Page 86
October 28, 2003
the expenses.
One of the things we did offer as part of a compromise, before
this came to the Commission, was to utilize that. And that was the
intent. And I wanted to give you -- show you on the visualizer here.
Our intent for terminating that agreement was to terminate: One, was
to change what the expenses are, the $199,000. We've fallen behind
the times a little bit with the new pay increases that we did last spring
with our personnel. And I think they recognized that.
The other intent was, we did have some discussions at the staff
level about allowing them to use that unit to go out of county. And
that was one of the things we did propose as a verbal settlement.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My next question, I guess, goes
to Mr. Saunders.
Why can't we expand this agreement, what we're doing locally,
to also be able to go out of county and to be able to pick it up in such
a way and fashion it that it will work out for the best of everyone?
Can we do that?
MR. SAUNDERS: I would say with the direction of the County
Commission we can accomplish anything that is appropriate.
But again, the reason -- one of the reasons we're here is this
agreement was terminated. Now, we could have modified this
agreement without terminating it. That's sort of like the bullet's out
of the gun, if you will, in terms of that agreement. It's been
terminated. So we can reinstate that agreement and then negotiate it
and do whatever is appropriate in the best interest of the citizens.
You know, this issue actually goes beyond just Naples
Community Hospital, it's a Cleveland Clinic issue, it will be an HMA
issue if they build a hospital here, because all these hospitals operate
emergency rooms and they're all there to take care of your citizens
and our citizens. So this goes beyond just NCH.
But we can -- we can negotiate anything. But the problem is
that, you know, we've been told this is the deal, you pay for the
Page 87
October 28, 2003
out-of-county transports for the indigent, and this agreement's
terminated, we're going to do something else. Well, that's just not the
way for everybody to sit down and work things out.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we're at the point --
we've got one of the greatest hospitals in the world. I mean, Naples
Community Hospital has stepped up to the plate many times to make
things work. We've got the greatest EMS service that we can ever
find in the State of Florida, very dedicated people. What's the
problem here? I think we ought to send them back, put them into a
room and not let them out until they come up to a settlement.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before I go back to Commissioner
Halas, I'm not sure, Mr Mudd, maybe you can help me out, if we
provide this service to Cleveland Clinic where we transport out of
county at no charge, or are we going to do that to M -- MR. MUDD: HMA.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- HMA?
MR. MUDD: Let me try to get a little bit. The intent of this
letter that you see on the overhead was to try to bring the agreement
up to current costs, like a CPI increase, to try to -- also try to help
alleviate the current situation they're in. This is a dollar and cents -- I
heard the emotional piece of this, okay? I want to make sure I heard
it.
The first thing I want to say is NCH is a great facility in Collier
County, okay? And it had nothing to do with medical care. It's a
business -- it's a business issue, just like it's -- in some cases it's a
business issue on who they transport. And I have a list of
transportings, and we have fracture cases and things like that, and
over half of them over a period of time, the 47 that I have, are people
that are 13 years or younger out of county. So I can talk about those
particular issues.
But I want to make sure that everybody understands that this is a
business decision.
Page 88
October 28, 2003
First of all, again, NCH is a great facility, okay? And Collier
County's glad to have them there. There were 170 transports over the
last year from their hospital outside of Collier County using EMS. It
was brought to my attention back in the March, April time frame
where NCH, Mr. Morton, Gail, all had a concern about not being
able to get the transport out of county, and that's why you have the
letter of agreement here.
And what we tried to do is look at them and say, hey, we're not
trying to pull the plug on out-of-county services, but we would wish
that you would try to find a way, like Cleveland Clinic has, to
contract with an ambulance service, okay, in order to provide your
out-of-county transport or whatever you can do in order to do that.
And so we gave them that 60-day period of time.
So it wasn't a light switch piece where we turned off the plug
and had done that particular issue.
They came back and said, hey, we still want to do your EMS out
of county.
You have to understand that our certificate of need is
pre-hospital for EMS. We basically go from the house to the hospital.
If you take a look at the Florida Statute, the Florida Statute says --
and that's on Page 13 and 14 of your packet, under Item 10(D). And
again, I didn't make this law, nor am I a lawmaker. And I can't tell
you if Mr. Saunders at the time, as Senator of this state that
represents us was there at the time. I can't go back that far and I'm
too new to Collier County to understand that.
But it says on Page 14, Paragraph 2, bottom of the page, if an
arrangement requires the provision of emergency medical
transportation, such arrangement must be made in consultation with
the applicable provider and may not require the emergency medical
service provider to provide transportation that is outside the retained
service area of that provider or in a manner that impairs the ability of
the emergency medical service provider to timely respond to the
Page 89
October 28, 2003
pre-hospital emergency call.
And I would say to you, prior to April, in this county, if NCH
called, we pulled, okay? We pulled the unit out of service. So we
pulled the unit that was dedicated to go out there and answer the
calls, pre-hospital service in our EMS.
In April, when they decided to pay the particular costs, John
Dunnuck and Mr. Jeff Page put a 24-hour unit on call, okay, at
taxpayers expense, paying the overtime, knowing that they would be
reimbursed from that particular case in the process.
I will also tell you, and Commissioner-- or Mr. Saunders is
right in the fact that, yeah, it is all over the board, okay, as far as
what EMS folks do. I will tell you that we have contacted West
Palm Beach County, Alachua, Lee County to our north. We always
try to gauge what Lee and Sarasota is doing. We've talked to Sumter
County, Lake County, they all have -- their EMS gets reimbursed
from their hospitals. And Sarasota County Emergency Services does
not take out-of-county transport but they do have a written agreement
with the Sarasota Memorial whereby they bill the hospital for all the
transporting originating from the hospital.
So I guess what I'm saying is we're talking about a $400,000 --
based on the executive summary and our best estimates -- about a
$400,000 outlay if we continue to do out-of-county transport without
being reimbursed with a guarantee from the hospital. That's a
$400,000 outlay.
And the other thing that Mr. Saunders talked about in the
negotiation strategy was the upper payment limit. And if you
remember, that particular item we brought to the Board of County
Commissioners about two months ago, John, that basically said we
could start negotiations. And we have the ability to go out and get
outside payments from the federal government and the state on the
upper payment limit of some $600,000, of which you have to do it
through NCH, of which they would receive an administrative charge
Page 90
October 28, 2003
for particularly doing that.
So what I've heard today is if we continue to do it without a
payment of last resort, it's a $400,000 outlay from ad valorem
dollars. And if they don't want to work on the upper payment limit,
what the hospital is saying, and their representative is saying is, that's
another $600,000 that the taxpayers of Collier County wouldn't be
able to benefit from, from outside sources.
So I look at this as a million dollar proposition that stands in
front of the Board of County Commissioners today.
But this is a business decision on how to do the transport. Yes,
there are people, lives at stake in that process. It isn't something that
we just basically said we're pulling the plug. We've had several
conversations. I've been with Mr. Morton at least twice over the last
eight months to talk about this particular issue.
Did I answer your question in a roundabout way, sir?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Boy, you did. Thank you.
Commissioner Halas and then Commissioner Coyle, and
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think the County Manager
basically answered my question in a sense, and that's where I was
going to go is, how does Cleveland Clinic address this issue? And
I'm sure that we have another, as we said, another hospital, that's
HMA, that's going to be coming in our community. And of course
this could be a snowball effect.
So we're all here to make sure that we address the taxpayers'
dollars as best as possible and that we're here as stewards to make
sure that we spend that money wisely.
So I commend County Manager for giving that insight into
where we stand at this point.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me see if I can recite my
understanding of the problem here. The Naples Community Hospital
Page 91
October 28, 2003
actually pays for an ambulance and a crew. Pays the entire cost,
$190,000 a year for that crew.
And in my estimation, that particular ambulance and crew
should be available to do just about anything that is medically
necessary associated with hospital transports, either in county or out
of county.
As I understand the problem, it is that if that unit, and it's called
Unit 51, is that --
MR. DUNNUCK: Medic 80.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Medic 80. Okay, all right, Medic
80.
If Medic 80 is otherwise employed in transferring a patient to
Lee Memorial Hospital, as an example, and there is a true emergency
that requires a transfer, what happens?
MR. DUNNUCK: Let me correct you right there. Medic 80
only does inter-facility locally between NCH Hospital system here.
It does not go out of county.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, understand. But what I'm
suggesting is perhaps if Naples Community Hospital is paying for the
entire unit, why do we care where it goes except for this one thing?
MR. DUNNUCK: We don't. That was the compromise we
offered.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So that's one thing I would
suggest we take a quick look at, is just say, look, you're paying for
this unit, use it any way you want to, take it -- take it to Tampa, take
it over on the East Coast, wherever you want to use it. But then if an
emergency comes up, we have an obligation then to accomplish
emergency evacuations to another hospital, if that is required. Is that
a fair statement?
MR. DUNNUCK: We have a protocol for pre-hospital
treatment that if there's a patient and we get a call, not at NCH, but
we have a protocol in place that's created by the medical director,
Page 92
October 28, 2003
that we would automatically take them to the most appropriate
location. And we don't bill the hospital for that.
It's the patient who's walked in at NCH and they have -- their
doctors have determined it to be an emergency, is -- then again it's
the financial issue of who pays.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You see, then that is the crux of
the problem, because here's what-- what I think is happening: The
hospital is making the unilateral decision about whether or not a
person requires transfer, either to another one of their hospitals or to
an out-of-county hospital. And depending upon their decision, we,
that is the taxpayers of Collier County, have to pay for that. And I
think that's the primary point of contention, if I can understand it
correctly. And I believe there is a difference between emergency
transports and other transports.
But here's the information that we've been given, Senator
Saunders. There's a transfer for sickle cell. You know, sickle cell is
not an emergency, it's a condition. There's a transfer for cancer
treatment. There's a transfer for Crohn's disease. Crohn's disease
isn't immediately life-threatening, as I understand it. There's a
transfer for angioplasty. There's a transfer for fractured pelvic.
There's a transfer for abdominal pain.
I understand what people have said earlier, that these seem to be
life-threatening issues that we're dealing with, but the reason for
some of these transfers seems to be something else. And these are
transfers that have not just gone to other-- well, they've all gone out
of county: Lee County, Moffett Cancer Center, Tampa General,
Tampa General, Tampa General, Lee Memorial.
So I can understand that when there are emergencies we all have
to react to take care of those situations. But when you have the
unilateral decision-making responsibility for deciding who goes
where, and they might be financial decisions, I don't know.
DR. WEISS: The physician -- the attending physician makes
Page 93
October 28, 2003
the decision as to where the patient goes. The attending physicians
take care of everyone, whether they have insurance or they don't
have insurance. Some of these transfers, the Moffett Cancer Center,
may be for specialized cancer treatment patients, the acutely ill and
cannot travel by regular transportation, or they would have gone right
to Moffett, assuming that's where their physicians were. Obviously it
depends on the clinical situation as to what's going on.
But the physician who is the attending physician in the ER at
the time makes a decision as to whether they can care for the patient
in the facility or not. Our physicians take care of everybody who
comes in, regardless of whether they can pay or they don't pay. One
out of five patients is either indigent or on Medicaid. So these are
not financial decisions as to whether somebody is transferred or not,
they're really quality of care and where people have been -- being
cared for.
The other thing is a majority of those transfers I suspect are
between North Collier and NCH, and they may be for patient
convenience or physician convenience.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, actually, they're from NCH to
Tampa General for Crohn's disease.
DR. WEISS: It could be that the patient has a short bowel or
some other medical condition which precluded the patient from being
cared for at our place.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sickle cell.
DR. WEISS: Or it could have been the patient's preference also.
Sickle cell, crisis, who knows.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Okay.
Well, I can understand the problem where the Naples
Community Hospital has the unilateral decision to decide who is
transferred, where they're transferred, and why they're transferred,
and some of them are, in my opinion, clearly not emergencies.
But it appears to me that we should be able to solve that
Page 94
October 28, 2003
problem. And I agree with Commissioner Coletta that it's an issue
that we need to resolve. We don't need to get into a competition
about this thing.
But I would start off with a suggestion that the Naples
Community Hospital pays for that ambulance, and they ought to be
able to use it for whatever they want to use it for. Does that make
sense?
MR. DUNNUCK: Absolutely. I mean, part of our concern is
we have this dedicated unit for inter-facilities transports and then we
have an additional one and sometimes two units that we're taking off
the system for local pre-hospital transports if they're -- is determined
to be an emergency by the physician, the attending physician, as Dr.
Weiss had indicated. And that's where it comes from a programming
standpoint, that affects our level of service.
You know, we would tend to agree with you, utilize an
inter-facility. That was the intention of the letter that we wrote at
that period of time. That's why we recommended the termination and
not total renegotiation. Because there is a provision in there that says
if our fees go up we can just change the fees and agree to it. We
recommended termination because we want to change the service
provisions of it to include out of county.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner
Coletta, Commissioner Halas, Senator Saunders.
MR. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, just a couple --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala's first, if you
don't mind.
MR. SAUNDERS: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ladies first.
MR. SAUNDERS: Oh, I thought you were asking if they had
anything to say and they didn't.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: They do.
MR. SAUNDERS: I apologize.
Page 95
October 28, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
Yes, NCH already has their own ambulance, or, well, pays for
an ambulance that EMS operates. I don't know how often that
ambulance sits idle when it isn't going between the system right here
in the county, but I truly agree with Commissioner Coletta and
Commissioner Coyle on everything they've said. I would believe that
by using that ambulance to go out of county as well, you know, that
that would help you, it would almost force you to differentiate
between true emergencies and maybe just a medical transport.
I know the hospital used to have a medical transport system -- I
don't know if they still do or not -- whereby, you know, if somebody
had a broken arm or Crohn's disease or whatever and needed to be
taken to another place but it wasn't a true medical emergency where
they had to be put on life support and so forth, they could use that
transport.
I believe that there's got to be a happy medium here. And I
think that through communication and negotiation, that could be
reached. You already have paid for your own ambulance and that
could be used, I think, possibly more wisely, and I would like to see
them go back to the table and have a little more open discussion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we're covering this very
well. I like the direction we're going. It came to us because I think
there was a meltdown. And the will of the Commission is such that
of course we're concerned about the taxpayers' dollars and we're also
concerned about the health, safety and welfare of the community.
And I think the direction we'd like to see, and I'm hearing it loud
and clear, is go back, renegotiate this, take a look at it, then come
back to see us. But please, be serious about these negotiations. No
hardball. Get in there and realize what's right for not only the people
out there that need the service but for the taxpayers of Collier County
who may have to pick up part of this bill.
Page 96
October 28, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd go along also, but I think
another part of the equation is maybe NCH ought to look at the
possibility of non-emergency transport, of looking at possibly getting
involved with privatizing some service to come in to assist.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Saunders?
MR. SAUNDERS: A couple of things. First of all, in terms of
the upper payment limit, I've said this twice and I'll say it a third
time, NCH is committed to working with you to make that happen.
That's not part of this conversation. We're going to negotiate those
deals. And so I wanted the Manager to understand that this is not a
situation where we're saying we're not going to do one thing if you
don't do something else. Those negotiations will take place,
regardless of what happens here.
In terms of sitting down with your staff to try to negotiate
something, I think the message is pretty clear that you want this
resolved in a way that's acceptable to all the parties here. And we're
happy to do that immediately, starting today, in terms of trying to
find some solution.
What I'd ask the County Commission to do is to maintain the
status quo until we solve this problem, the status quo being that you
continue to provide the out-of-county transports. And we're not
talking about a long period of time. We should be able to resolve
this in the next 30 days, I would think. But the county to maintain
the out-of-county transports and maintain the agreement. You may
want to do a CPI kicker in that agreement, and that's fine. But
maintain that agreement for the inter-facility until we get this
resolved, and we'll come back to you with the whole package. Give
us 30 to 45 days to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think the time limit is very
important so we don't have this thing going on.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let me interject here. I think
Page 97
October 28, 2003
I've given everybody ample enough time.
Our staff and NCH has been negotiating this item. It's come to
the Board to take action. The action that I would like to see is the
action that Commissioner Coyle suggested, is you've got an
ambulance, use it for your needs; otherwise, we're going to bill you
for it and we expect payment. That's where I would come from. To
send staff back to the table is not going to do any good.
Commissioner Coyle, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's okay. I just wanted to
suggest that we do resolve this as quick as possible, but we keep one
thing in mind. Whatever we do, it must be in an arrangement that we
can live with vis-a-vis the other hospitals, if there are going to be
other hospitals in Collier County. But we must be careful not to get
ourselves into a position where this cost is magnified many times by
having to provide similar services to another hospital that might
require it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Look, I'm going to call for a motion
to give clear and concise direction. Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: I need one other piece. I want to make sure it's
brought to the attention of the board. NCH paid $170,000 for
services from October to March, or something like that. And they
haven't paid anything for the services outside. And there's
outstanding -- there's an outstanding bill of some $190,000.
I've also received a letter from their vice president that basically
said they want their $170,000 back, okay? I have no intention,
unless the Board directs me, to return that $170,000. I think we're on
legal ground that says we could bill that. And I would like to have
some other direction about what do we do with the $190,000
outstanding, based on the agreement that we had with the hospital
that if we did out-of-county transport that they would be the payer of
last resort.
Page 98
October 28, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, I'm open for a motion.
MR. DUNNUCK: And just to add on to that, that goes
hand-in-hand with the recommendation to ratify that agreement that
the County Manager reached in that letter that was sent out
previously. And that's in your recommendations.
MR. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, if I might, there's two sides
to an agreement, or three sides, but there are at least two sides to an
agreement. And NCH has never agreed to reimburse Collier County
for the out-of-county transports of the non-paying customers from the
period of October to the present time. They paid the $171,000
because they wanted to make sure that our citizens had transport.
They were forced into making that payment.
The Mudd letter that's in your executive summary talks about a
60-day period that was agreed to. So I said in my opening
comments, we will pay the out-of-county transports for the
non-paying patients for that 60-day period. But there never was an
agreement. There was an agreement that we would make that
payment to try to work this thing out. But that agreement was made
in order to protect the health and safety of our citizens.
MS. ROBINSON: I'd like to speak to that when you have --
when I have an opportunity, if I may?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, please.
MS. ROBINSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Jacqueline
Hubbard-Robinson, Assistant County Attorney on behalf of staff.
This latter issue is a very important issue, because we have a
request from NCH for a refund of funds that were paid under a verbal
agreement. We also have outstanding charges that are chargeable to
NCH as a result of the continuation of that agreement.
And if you notice in the executive summary, in the next to last
paragraph, it says that after the 60 days that was mentioned in the
letter expired, both sides, both NCH and Collier County staff, agreed
that the program for out-of-county transports was working and that
Page 99
October 28, 2003
the county would be recouping 100 percent of its cost and the
program then continued.
So it's important to understand that what the staff requests of the
Commissioners is that not only do you ratify the agreement as set
forth in the letter, but that you also ratify that, as far as staff is
concerned, the Board of County Commissioners approves the
continuation of that agreement, either until it's terminated or until
some new agreement is worked out, because those costs are
continuing.
And it's important for the Board to acknowledge that its
understanding is that if the county continues to provide those
out-of-county transports, they will be pursuant to the initial
agreement that was reached with NCH.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, we need to come to a
resolution here.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I just had one more question
before we go. Is it possible to differentiate between emergency -- I
mean, if you have a baby that's dying, certainly -- and they don't
have the ability to pay, but they need to be transported to Tampa
Children's Hospital, we have to get them there. I mean, we don't let
them sit here because they can't pay.
Conversely, if you have somebody with sickle cell anemia who
needs to get there but they could be transported by a non-emergency
vehicle, then should we be paying for something like that? So is
there a way to differentiate between the two? It doesn't seem like it's
being done.
MR. SAUNDERS: There are ways to determine whether
someone needs to be transported. There are protocols that the
physicians go through to determine where someone should be
transported.
The physicians in the emergency room that are saying that
Page 100
October 28, 2003
someone needs to be at Shands or needs to be at Lee Memorial
Trauma Center, they're not making that decision because they flipped
a coin that's hey, that's where we're going to send them. They know
what they're doing. I think we have to have some confidence --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're not answering my question,
Burt. What I'm asking is, I'm saying can you differentiate? Maybe
the physician says, yes, they need to be at Shands. But is it a medical
emergency or is it a transport, a hospital transport? And there's the
difference. I think there's a lot of expense involved in transporting
patients who need to go to another hospital, but they're not a medical
emergency. There's where I'm going with that.
MR. SAUNDERS: And maybe that's part of the conversation
that we need to have. I can't answer that specific question. I will tell
you, though, I think it's a neat trick of your county attorney to ratify a
verbal agreement. I think she's probably asking you to ratify it
because staff can't enter into those types of agreements. I think the
County Commission enters into those agreements. She's asking you
to ratify a verbal agreement that's memorialized in a letter that talks
about a 60-day period.
We've got a lot of these issues that we need to resolve. I think
that if you'll give us the time to sit down, I think there's some
direction here. But in terms of trying to resolve this right now in
front of you, I don't think we'll be able to do that. But again, I'm
going to ask you to maintain status quo until we get to that point.
Give us the 30 days or 45 days to work it out.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you going to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I am. I'm going to make a
motion that we send this back for renegotiation, that we maintain
status quo with the understanding that it's not a forgiveness of debts
that may be owed, that everything is still on the table and that we
come back here within 45 days with an agreement, or else this
Commission will come up with one.
Page 101
October 28, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any discussion on the
motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does that give direction enough
for staff?.
MR. MUDD: I'm trying to figure out what the status quo is.
See, the status quo as of April was an agreement where we came
together and then after their 60 days they came back to us and said
we want to continue that particular agreement, okay? And that's
where we sit in that process. And that agreement was pretty specific,
that written letter that tried to memorialize what we talked about. If
you go --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can emphasize (sic) on this,
Mr. Mudd, that may get us out of this.
Sir, the status quo is what we have at this point in time now. In
fact, if the bills aren't paid, they're not paid. We're not going to force
payment until we reach this 45-day limit. Those -- everything is up.
We put it all together in one package and you boys talk it back and
forth and come up with something that's realistic. Because if you
don't, we'll come up with something that probably isn't.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't -- still don't -- I don't
understand the motion.
MR. MUDD: I'm going to continue to bill is what is the status
quo.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What we're going to do is
continue to bill, and they're going to be liable for those payments
until we come up with some type of direction or negotiations with the
two sides here in regards to that. Is that a good understanding?
MR. SAUNDERS: No, that is not understood.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What do you mean it's not?
MR. SA UNDERS: I'm telling you, I'm telling the Commission
that NCH is not going to guarantee the payment of out-of-county
Page 102
October 28, 2003
transports for non-paying customers. Now, you're saying give us 45
days and you can continue billing us. That's fine. You can bill us all
you want. But there is no agreement that NCH is going to hold you
harmless on those out-of-county transports. We expect EMS to
transport those medically necessary transports.
You can continue to bill us and you can continue to do that until
the 45 days are up. But there's no agreement that NCH is going to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what agreement are you going
to give us with the people that pay taxes in this county? Are we
going to do this for all three hospitals then?
MR. SAUNDERS: You know, NCH is not in the medical
transport business. You are.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's true. But there's no reason
why you couldn't privatize it.
MR. SAUNDERS: Think about what you're saying for just a
moment. What you're saying is Collier County EMS is prepared to
transport patients who can pay you, but we're not going to transport
patients that can't pay you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: He did not say that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I did not say that.
MR. SAUNDERS: Unless--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I did not say that, no, no.
MR. SAUNDERS: Unless, unless NCH guarantees that
payment. And I'm telling you that NCH is not going to guarantee
that payment.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that isn't what was said. So our
responsibility is transport within the county. That's our
responsibility.
MR. MUDD: It's pre-hospital. Our certificate says pre-hospital.
It says within Collier County. That's what our license says right
now.
MR. SAUNDERS: All right. Now, let me ask another question,
Page 103
October 28, 2003
if I might, Mr. Chairman. Because again, we're talking about the
health and safety of our citizens. This is not, you know, a water and
sewer plant, this is not a road construction project. This is somebody
sitting in the emergency room that may very well die while we sit
here trying to make decisions.
If Collier County is not going to make those transports, then
NCH is going to come before you and ask for a certificate so that
NCH can run an ambulance to make those transports. And if you
want to go that route where we take over that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Negotiations.
MR. MUDD: We'll be able to give them a week to go out of
county with their own --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, there you go. You may
have your--
MR. SAUNDERS: What we're talking about is inter-facility
transports and out-of-county transports, if that's where we need to go.
But we need a little bit of time to sit down with your staff.
The only point I'm making from a legal standpoint is NCH is not
agreeing to reimburse you for the out-of-county transports, past
present or future. And so you can make your motion in terms of
billing, but I just want the record to be clear that there's not an
agreement on our side of the equation to accept that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Saunders, you're making it
very difficult by putting this barrier in front of us before negotiations
even took place. We could come back and say the same thing, that
we're not going to negotiate anything but full payment of it.
What I'm asking you is to go back and sit with negotiations with
more of an open mind that we will not. This is making it very
difficult. I don't know if we're going to be able to come to an
agreement today, but it may not be in the best interest of the hospital.
MR. SAUNDERS: I understand. It's a difficult situation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Senator.
Page 104
October 28, 2003
Any further discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can we have some clarification on
exactly what we're going to be voting on?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Continue billing to the hospital for
the transport out of county.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're saying we'd like to have the
two parties come together and negotiate some type of a settlement or
some type of agreement in the time frame of 45 days; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And also there was -- we're not
forgiving any debt.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, everything's on the table.
MR. DUNNUCK: Ratifying the agreement.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. Okay?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by ·
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
Item # 10C
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AND THE COUNTY'S LABOR
NEGOTIATION COMMITTEE HOLD A STRATEGY SESSION
FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITH THE SOUTHWEST
Page 105
October 28, 2003
FLORIDA PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS AND
PARAMEDICS, IAFF LOCAL 1826, IN THE SHADE PURSUANT
TO SECTION 477_605 (1) FI,A. STAT
And we need to go into closed door session.
MR. MUDD: In the shade. That's Item 10(C). And Mr.
Chairman, I would make a recommendation that the Board reconvene
at about a quarter to 2:00.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Good.
MR. MUDD: 1:45.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What, have you got a haircut or a
date?
MR. MUDD: No, sir, I'm just giving you time to have lunch.
And you also have closed door, which will probably take anywhere
from 15 to 45 minutes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, we'll be back at 1:30.
(A recess was taken.)
Item #10E
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE COMMERCIAL
EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.868 "STEWART EARTH
MINING", LOCATED IN SECTION 18 AND 19, TOWNSHIP 46
SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST; BONDED ON THE NORTH AND
WEST BY EXISTING CITRUS GROVES, AND ON THE EAST
BY VACANT LAND AND A FARM BUILDING- APPROVED
W/STIPI libATIONS
MR. MUDD: You have a hot light, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Assistant County Manager, please
take your seat.
Recommendation to approve the commercial excavation permit
Page 106
October 28, 2003
number 59.868 Stewart Earth Mining, located in Section 18 and 19,
Township 46 South, Range 29 east; bounded on the north and west
by existing citrus groves, on the south by vacant land and existing
citrus groves, and on the east by vacant land and a farm building.
Stan Chrzanowski.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good morning, commissioners, Stan
Chrzanowski with Engineering Review, and this petition was a
conditional use that came before you, probably over a month ago, for
a mine up above the City of Immokalee. The excavation permit,
considering it's a commercial excavation, has to come back before
you again and we had some stipulations that came up during the
conditional use about having to get a water management district
permit before other permits, about hours of operation, about a turn
lane, and about some land that's going to 'be dedicated to the County
eventually. Those stipulations have all been incorporated into the
document you have, and if you have any questions the petitioner's
engineer Jeff Davidson and I'm here to answer them.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have one public speaker.
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, no, go ahead with the
public speaker.
MS. FILSON: Pamela Stewart.
MS. STEWART: I don't know if I need to speak.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, do you need to?
MS. STEWART: I don't know.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. Let me know.
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion on the floor.
I'll second the motion.
Motion by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner
Henning. Any further discussion?
Page 107
October 28, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is there -- we've -- you're going to
take into account everything that we discussed in the last meeting in
regards to the County is going to out there periodically and make
sure that everything is running according to the conditions that we
put on the order the last time it was up; is that correct?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir, about six months ago we
instituted a new policy for us to visit every commercial excavation in
Collier County once a month. We've been doing that and when this
project starts up, we will do that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Good.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a question concerning -- I'm
still concerned about that. The land development code, according to
the executive summary, states that the excavations are limited to the
depth of 20 feet, a depth supported by the fetch formula or a depth
supported by comparative quality study. In this case the excavation
would be limited to approximately 50 feet in depth using the fetch
formula.
Now, do I understand that to mean that under all three of those
criteria, the maximum depth would be 50 feet?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir, but -- and you want me to
continue?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure, please.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. We had two hearings in front of
the Environmental Advisory Counsel that natural resources staff and
engineering staff attended. We had quite a variety of experts talk
about the issue. We had one hearing in front of the Planning
Commission, and our fetch formula is based on window return.
What it does is it stops the bottom of the lake from getting anoxic,
not anaerobic but anoxic. And I guess it was -- it was determined
during the course of those hearings that the water table down there is
anoxic anyway, and that there's no real harm in the bottom of the
Page 108
October 28, 2003
lake being anoxic if you don't dump a whole bunch of nutrients into
it. And this operation will not dump a lot of nutrients into this
project, and we have other lakes in Collier County that when we did
the research we found out were also in violation of the fetch formula
substantially. And we don't seem to have any problems. Some of
them have subdivisions around them.
So staff was convinced by the permittee's consultants, the
professional geologist, a professional analogist, and a few engineers
that we're not going to have a problem here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Stewart, have you made up your
mind whether you'd like to speak or not.
MS. STEWART: How are you going to vote?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We'll tell you in a minute.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Wait and see. Any further
discussion on the motion. All in favor of the motion signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING Any opposed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle dissenting.
Item #1 OF
RESOLUTION 2003-379 REQUESTING BOARD APPROVAL TO
ACCEPT A GRANT OF $200,000 UNDER THE FLORIDA
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATION FUND
PROGRAM; APPROVE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
FLORIDA OFFICE OF TRADE, TOURISM AND ECONOMIC
Page 109
October 28, 2003
DEVELOPMENT AND COLLIER COUNTY; APPROVE A
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $200,000;
APPROVE A RESOLUTION ASSUMING FUTURE ROAD
MAINTENANCE; AND APPROVE A ROAD MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE OUNTY AND NORTH NAPLES
GOIJF RANGE~ INC.- ADOPTED
Next item.
MR. MUDD: 10-F and that's a request for board approval to
accept a grant of $200,000 under the Florida Economic Development
Transportation Fund Program; approve an agreement between the
Florida Office of Trade, Tourism and Economic Development and
Collier County; approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$200,000; approve a resolution assuming future road maintenance;
and approve a road maintenance agreement between the County and
the North Naples Golf Range, Inc.
It would be presented by Mr. Cohen.
MR. COHEN: Thank you. Good afternoon, commission,
Randy Cohen from Community Planning and Redevelopment
manager for the record. Back on July 29th, 2003, you reviewed and
acted on a similar resolution. The agreement and resolution were
provided to the office of the governor office of Trade and Tourism
and Economic Development. One of the problems that came back
from the office of Trade and Tourism and Economic Development
was a stipulation that the County assume road maintenance in order
for them to release the funds, which is $200,000. What had
previously happened we had entered into, and we being Collier
County, a third-party agreement with the technology and research
park, which they found to be inadequate in the resolution. What this
particular resolution does is clarify the matter. It allows us to go
forward with the resolution provided back to the office of the
governor, and in essence will release the funds. The other action is
Page 110
October 28, 2003
similar to the action that you took previously, which will authorize us
to get the $200,000, do the necessary budget amendment. And at the
same time the agreement between the third party and Collier County
will be ratified and remain in effect.
So that's basically it in a nutshell.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions?
Entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coyle, second by Commissioner Coletta. Any discussion on the motion?
All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
Motion carries four to zero.
Item #10G
RESOLUTION 2003-380 ADOPTING A RESOLUTION OF NO
OBJECTION TO THE ENACTMENT OF A BILL BY THE
FLORIDA LEGISLATURE CREATING AN INDEPENDENT
SPECIAL DISTRICT UNDER CHAPTER 189, FLORIDA
STATUTES, TO BE KNOWN AS THE BIG CYPRESS
STEWARDSHIP DlSTRlCT- ADOPTED W/CHANGES
MR. MUDD: The next item 10-G and it's a recommendation
that the board adopt a resolution of no objection to the enactment of a
Page 111
October 28, 2003
bill by the Florida Legislature creating an independent Special
District under Chapter 189, Florida Statutes, to be known as the Big
Cypress Stewardship District. And is it Schmitt or -- oh, Tom-- Mr.
Tom Conrecode will present.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And if there's any question with our
legal staff, Heidi Ashton is here.
MR. CONRECODE: Commissioners, good afternoon. My
name is Tom Conrecode and I'm with Collier Enterprises. I'd first
like to thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation today
about the creation of the Big Cypress Stewardship District. I'm
accompanied by Terry Lewis of the firm Lewis, Longman and
Walker, who's helped us with some of the legal analysis and
comparison of district options for the lands in the stewardship area
adopted by Collier County. And he will help me address any legal
questions that come up. He's worked diligently with Heidi Ashton on
some of the specific issues of drafting the bill, and addressing
concerns of the County.
Our company has a long and proud history in Collier County
and a record of practical and positive care of the lands. And our
goals when creating this district are in maintaining and sustaining
that practice. We've long practiced responsible agriculture, prudent
habitat preservation, and award-winning development when
development was called for on the lands in and around Collier
County. These are a few of the preservation projects that we've done
in the past, and I think are good examples of stewardship that Collier
Enterprises has demonstrated.
Following the adoption of the rural land stewardship program a
year ago, and it's implementing criteria Collier Enterprises has
looked into the best tools available to achieve the County's comp.
plan goals found at Chapter 189, was the most practical tool in that it
provided the greatest flexibility in achieving the preservation of
agriculture, the preservation of habitat, and the potential for
Page 112
October 28, 2003
development in a managed way in the future. Chapter 189 was
created in the late '80's in Florida Statutes in order to provide the
appropriate structure and framework for special purpose districts.
Prior to that, there had been a number of districts that were created;
however those districts lacked specificity and statute and had some
problems that needed to be addressed and the legislature willingly
addressed them, in cooperation with the Association of Counties, the
League of Cities, and the Association of Special Districts that came
up with Chapter 189. Districts, as a result of Chapter 189, are
subordinate to the general purpose government, the County
Commission, in this particular case, they're subject to government in
the sunshine, just like county government is, have all the same public
records requirements, are subject to government accounting and audit
procedure, and they are under the scrutiny of state and county
oversight.
Although Collier County has a dozen or more community
development districts formed under Chapter 190, a sister statute to
Chapter 189, Big Cypress Stewardship District is not a CDD. The
reason is, CDD's require a development plan, and there is no plan for
development for our lands in the rural land stewardship area that are
subject to this district.
Big Cypress Stewardship District is -- will continue to be
subject to the land use, zoning decisions of this board, and will
always be required to comply with the land development regulations
that you have adopted, and the comprehensive plans that you have
adopted.
Collier Enterprises will continue to pay all their normal county
taxes, plus the district taxes that will provide for the conservation and
maintenance of the stewardship plans, as well as any infrastructure
cooperation agreements that are reached with Collier County. I had
mentioned that Collier County already has a number of Chapter 190
special districts, but throughout the state there are about 1,200
Page 113
October 28, 2003
districts organized under different statutes and all serving a variety of
different purposes. Many of these are very limited in scope; i.e., fire
districts, library districts, drainage districts, but there are also a
number that have a broader scope or a broader application, we've
identified a few of those here on the slide.
What I'd like to do is sort of put the district in perspective
relative to some other geographic features. Most of them are roads
that you're quite familiar with, but also the Cork Screw Swamp
Sanctuary, and sort of that whole ecosystem as it moves south and
west and south and east into the Panther National Wildlife Refuge.
In addition to that, we'd like to put it in perspective on this map
on the wall relative to your rural land stewardship area that you
adopted in your comp. plan a year ago. And that is the area that is
out and surrounding Immokalee predominantly featured in the pink
and the greens, as you see there and east of Golden Gate Estates.
Although that map identifies lands owned by Collier Enterprises
throughout the rural land stewardship area, it is only the strip of land
on the westernmost portion of that, that is the subject of the district
today.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could you point that out for
everybody, everything.
MR. MUDD: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. CONRECODE: It's bordered on the east by the Camp
Keais Strand and on the west by Golden Gate Estates.
The rural land stewardship area comp. plan amendments that
were passed last year provided five-year triggers for gaging the
success of rural land stewardship. One year of that time is already
past, and one of the reasons that we're creating -- we're asking to
create the stewardship district is in order to take advantage of the
opportunity that you've provided in those comp. plan amendments,
but also to meet -- to help you achieve and help us achieve the goals
Page 114
October 28, 2003
of rural land stewardship. It provides for the early preservation of
habitat and it provides for the Department of Community Affairs
review of the success in the fifth year, and that success is going to be
gaged on the three primary directives of the final order from the
Governor in 1999. One of those is the preservation of vital
agriculture, which we'll continue to do, the preservation of critical
habitat which we will continue to do, and to provide for economic
development and managed growth in the areas to the east.
We think that the Ave Maria District, the one you'll hear about
in a moment, will speak to the second and third of these, while Big
Cypress Stewardship District will speak to the first two.
Because of the preservation focus of the Big Cypress
Stewardship District, we are reserving one seat of the board of
Governors for an environmental organization that's based in Collier
County. The purpose of that is to provide for the unique insights that
an environmental community will have and the continuous input
from them through the process of administering the district. Roughly
a third of the district will be set aside in habitat stewardship areas,
and flow ways stewardship areas, and about another 20 percent of it
will be established in water retention areas in wetlands.
The district allows us to achieve the County's and Collier
Enterprises' goals as outlined above. In addition, we've agreed to
donate right-a-way for two County road projects and cooperate on
other infrastructure needs that the County has as it continues its
service to a growing population.
I'd like to reiterate if I could, that all work within the district
must be consistent with the County's comprehensive plan and its land
development regulations, both those in place today and those that are
adopted in the future, and that any development, if it occurs in the
Big Cypress Stewardship area, would be back before this county
commission for development approval.
Also the district business will be conducted in the sunshine and
Page 115
October 28, 2003
is subject to state oversight, in addition to the publication of all
notices of meetings.
Collier Enterprises over these next few years will continue to
study the region and evaluate the best options that we have in order
to achieve our preservation goals and the best future for the area.
Our time line is beginning today asking for your support of the
creation of the district, and a finding of consistency with your
comprehensive plan. If we get that support, we'll go before the
legislative delegation next month, and the legislature in the spring for
passage of this special act to create the Big Cypress Stewardship
District.
If all agree, then the district would be created in approximately
June of 2004. This would, then, leave us about three years to create
conservation areas by ground sluicing all the habitat areas identified
last year during the comprehensive plan amendment process and
begin to undertake the restoration process and the County permitting
process for the rural land stewardship sending areas and those
receiving areas or the banking of those credits.
This multi million dollar effort is expected to take the better part
of two years to complete. Thereafter, it will be maintained in
perpetuity at no cost to the County. Those costs will be born by the
district.
Subject to your questions, I can close my presentation. And I'd
like to ask, again, for a request for your support to the special district.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the board members.
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Tom, can you tell us what part, if
any of this area is a receiving area and which parts are sending areas.
MR. CONRECODE: Well, generally speaking, any of the lands
that are identified in your comprehensive plan in the pink are
considered receiving areas. They're eligible to receive.
Now, there are areas within those pink areas that might have an
Page 116
October 28, 2003
isolated cypress head, that we will make every effort to avoid. But
for all intents and purposes those are the areas that have a value
below 1.2 on your natural resources scale, and would be eligible for
development. There's a lot of that area in pink I will tell you right
now is not of a high degree of development potential.
So -- but for all intents and purposes, if you look at the pink
areas, those are the areas to be considered.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The grayer blue area?
MR. CONRECODE: The blue area are water retention areas,
and they are currently permitted under South Florida Water
Management District permits. And then the dark blue is the flow
way of the Camp Keais Strand.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Tom, can you be a little more
specific on what benefit this is going to have for all of the citizens of
Collier County.
MR. CONRECODE: Sure. First and foremost what it does is it
will allow us to set into preservation the seven or 8,000 acres that
you see adjacent to Camp Keais Slough. And you can say we can do
that right now but there wouldn't -- aside from banking the credits,
there isn't the same level of motivation to do that outside of the
district as there is within the district, but that creates essentially the
NERPA, the only NERPA that you had identified early on in the
process, five years ago that had never been adopted. Kind of like the
Clam Bay, Clam Pass NERPA. But it would create the NERPA,
manage it and fund it within the district.
One of the primary benefits I think aside from the preservation
of that resource would then be management of the water resource in a
comprehensive way over the 22,000 acres of the District.
In addition to that, it provides for the cost of that maintenance to
be borne by the district, not by the general taxpayers of Collier
Page 117
October 28, 2003
County. The multi million dollar project that we've identified over
the next couple of years would be competing with all of your other
priorities for funding if it were simply transferred to the County for
operation and maintenance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So, we've got the 7,000
acres which are basically going to be a NERPA, then with the other
15,000 acres what -- what are -- what do you envision this is going to
be?
MR. CONRECODE: Okay. It's a NERPA like, in the
stewardship program, it will be called a stewardship area, habitat
flow -- habitat flow way stewardship areas. There's an additional 20
percent of the 22,000 acres that's called water retention areas, they're
essentially wetlands, but they're part of a network of water flow
ways, secondary to the main flow way. They're shown on the map in
light blue. That leaves about 50 percent of the total acreage of the
district that has the potential to be continued in agricultural
production, and if I were to show you the aerial map you would see
that most of that is in either potato or winter vegetable crop
production today. Some of it is in cattle grazing, and it will allow it
to continue in that use into the future or be developed as a village,
town or hamlet, consistent with your comprehensive plan amendment
last year.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: One more question. And I'll turn
it over to my other commissioners. Can you give us a breakdown of
what the potential for population would be for both -- for all three
categories, village, town and hamlet, so that we got -- this is a major
decision that we're trying to wrestle with and I'm concerned because
we're looking at a 15-year plan here when maybe nothing will be
done for 15 years, and we're making that choice today to decide if we
should go on with this, to establish this as a district, or whether we
should maybe look at more information on this or whatever, but my
concerns are the growth out there, what are we looking for as far as
Page 118
October 28, 2003
the growth with the remaining lands that are going to be able to be
developed after 15 years, let's say if we decide not to have them in
the state they are today and that's in the agriculture area?
MR. CONRECODE: Sure. And I'm going to give you a fairly
lengthy answer, because the first thing, if we just disregard the
district altogether, last year when you adopted a comprehensive plan
for the rural land stewardship area, you permitted hamlet, town and
village type development and compact rural development in that
comp. plan amendment, so those things can occur today. The hamlet
and compact rural development are roughly 100 acres in size, and
they can have about two units to the acre. So do the math and that
gives you how big those can be.
A village, then, is defined as something of about 1,000 acres,
and those can have upwards of four units per acre.
And then the town is defined by 4,000 acres and four units to
the acre, so 16,000. That's -- that's the rough math based on the
comp. plan amendments that were done before. The district either
promotes or stops that from occurring. That's already been adopted in
your comprehensive plan.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Now, this district if it
decides to be developed, it's your responsibility to put all the
infrastructure along with paying impact fees; is that correct? MR. CONRECODE: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now, the other thing is, we have
this policy where -- on the rural land stewardship area, that after five
years we're going to kind of take a snapshot look again to see if we
need to do any tweaking here or there. Does that also, if we decide
to go with this Big Cypress stewardship land, does this also make
you binding in regards to following whatever we need to address in
updating the code at that point?
MR. CONRECODE: As long as you adopt it in your
comprehensive plan or your land development regulations, or if you
Page 119
October 28, 2003
do an area master planner, some other revised special area plan that
we're a part of geographically, then the answer to that is yes we have
to comply with it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Conrecode, I might have
misunderstood when you were answering Commissioner Halas'
questions, but it was stated about Camp Keais flow way, that this will
be a tool to take care of it so the County does not have to take care of
it.
MR. CONRECODE: That's what I said. You understood that
correctly.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. What makes you think the
County's responsible for taking care of it?
MR. CONRECODE: Well, under your rural land stewardship
program, one of the options that we have is to convey the property to
you in the stewardship program and it becomes your responsibility in
perpetuity. What the district does is it allows the conveyance and the
responsibility to be maintained by the district.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Okay. But we'd have to accept it as
part of the option, correct?
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, you would.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. What tools are in this bill,
since this is a funding mechanism or a district as a governing
mechanism, and this does become a village, what -- if there any
prohibitions from it becoming a municipality.
MR. CONRECODE: Let me first say that the whole district
wouldn't become a village. A village is limited to 1,000 acres, and
the district is almost 22,000 acres. But a village could occur
somewhere within that whole geographic area. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. CONRECODE: So the district, in and of itself couldn't
become a municipality based on the development of a village.
Page 120
October 28, 2003
I hope that answers the question.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So it always will be a district
unless the landowners want to dissolve the special district.
MR. CONRECODE: Or change the special district and your
staff had put in your resolution that we would agree to bring back for
your concurrence any of those type of changes, any statutory changes
to the district would come back before the County Commission, for
just like this resolution of concurrence or a letter of no objection.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that would go to the legislature?
MR. CONRECODE: If the -- if the district were changed --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MR. CONRECODE: -- it would require legislation and that
would come back before you before it went to the State legislature.
CHAIRMAN HENNING. Just as a recommendation by the
board by the board and the legislature can do --
MR. CONRECODE: Either a letter of no objection or your
concurrence finding it inconsistent with your comprehensive plan.
Absent that, it doesn't go back to the legislature. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MR. CONRECODE: It needs to have your concurrence.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The -- is there any grant
opportunities that the district can take advantage of, I mean there's
bonding opportunities under the special district but can -- can the
district apply for grants?
MR. CONRECODE: I believe it could through -- for instance,
the water management district, if it were working in a regional water
management project, and we could certainly apply to them as a
government entity.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Is there any objections to
cooperating, working with the -- the County on those grant
applications as part of the legislation? What I don't want to set up is
the opportunities to where we're competing for grants in Collier
Page 121
October 28, 2003
County.
MR. CONRECODE: Okay. I'm going to have to defer to Terry
to ask specifically about how it could be done legislatively. I don't
think we would have any problem working cooperatively with you.
We're doing that now in the Lely Basin, working on grants to support
the County's side of the ledger on getting that project built.
MR. LEWIS: I don't think there'd be a problem -- I'm sorry,
Terry Lewis, attorney for the applicant and petitioner.
Commissioner, I don't think there'd be a problem doing that
from a technical, legal standpoint addressing it in the statute or in the
legislation, however, Tom is right, in my 25 years of working with
districts, I'm actually not aware of a single instance where one of the
districts was competing against a county or a city for a grant. You
have far more opportunities for the simple reason that most of the
grant laws are drawn to focus on general purpose governments, not
special purpose governments.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Lewis, maybe I was
misinformed, because I was told that the City of Orlando or is it Polk
County?
MR. LEWIS: It's Orange--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Orange County had found itself
competing against Disney, their districts for grants.
MR. LEWIS: That's exactly right. And the reason why is that
the Reddi Creek improvement district is the only district in the State
of Florida that has comprehensive planning authority. They have
their own comp. plan. They are in effect treated as though they're
general purpose government, the same as you, or the same as the
City.
This district doesn't have that authority. It wouldn't be in that
position. As Tom has said, we're -- we're 100 percent obligated, both
the landowner and the district to comply with and follow the rules
and regulations of Collier County.
Page 122
October 28, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Right. Let's -- thank you. Go to
Commissioner Coyle and then -- did you have something?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I did.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I couldn't tell. Commissioner
Coletta, Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's my mm now?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And then after you -- sorry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, this is a seemingly
complex and unfamiliar subject to us on the surface, but I tend to
think of this as a glorified MSTU, where the residents or the property
owners have the might to tax themselves to do something they want
to do specifically. Now, this is a very large one, and as I can see the
benefits to the property owner from the standpoint of being able to
develop something or prepare a plan that is comprehensive,
coordinated and consistent, in the same way that you wouldn't want
to take a planned unit development and farm it out to a number of
different developers who had inconsistent goals and styles and
interests, as far as future construction is concerned, but when we
adopted this idea that we wanted to control urban growth by forcing
future development and to control urban sprawl by forcing future
development in this area into rural villages, it seems to me that we
pretty much mandated this kind of a coordinated development
process or planning process, and where we have a single property
owner, it seems to be the purest form of democracy where the
property owner taxes himself to do what he wants to do.
The problems arise, as I see it, when you go beyond the current
property owner, and the areas that are to be developed are sold off to
other property owners, and those people then are taxed or assessed by
the board of this special district. And it's there, I perceive some
potential problems, and I'd like to explore appropriate solutions with
you. You will recall we had some difficulty with a Livingston Road
MSTU where the developer created an MSTU, some of the
Page 123
October 28, 2003
subsequent property owners didn't understand their obligations with
respect to that MSTU, objected to the taxing -- the millage levels that
were being assessed and ultimately demanded that we terminate the
MSTU. What I would like to do is to see if we can't institute the
appropriate safeguards to assure that anyone who wishes to purchase
property within this district is notified by an attachment to property
records, of the existence of the district and the district's rights to
assess taxes -- or implement taxes and assessments.
So I know that I've talked with you, Tom, about that. I think
you've done some research on it, and I think it would be good if we
were to hear the answer.
MR. LEWIS: Yes, sir. This is Terry Lewis again. On page six
of the act now in what would amount to bold, we used to call a red
letter disclosure, is the language that you're talking about that would
in effect require disclosure to anybody that purchase property within
the district that they are subject to assessments and taxes that are the
province explicitly of the stewardship district and no one else.
So it's captioned right in the middle of page six of the legislation
itself.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I remember correctly, that
applies to the board, or to the initial property owner?
MR. LEWIS: It applies to any initial purchaser of property
within the district.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's the problem. I'm
not so concerned that you as the -- as the current property owner
would not notify the first initial purchaser in that area. What happens
with the secondary and tertiary purchasers in those districts? The
only way I see that as being effective is to have some kind of
notation on the property records themselves.
MR. LEWIS: But to my knowledge anytime you have a second
or a third purchaser, I've never seen a property closings, you know,
where the first sheet that was presented to the land buyer wasn't a
Page 124
October 28, 2003
disclosure, not only of taxes, you know, but all assessments and
bonded indebtedness that ran with the land, I mean, in all of our lives
we've probably bought a house or two, a piece of property or two,
and invariably, if you're -- if you're cognizant of those things,
anyway, you're going to look to see what your assessments and taxes
are going to be. That's disclosed. It is not in this act or in this
legislation.
This issue has come up before, and it's been debated
legislatively before. The problem is that you run into, is with me as a
homeowner getting ready to sell my home and maybe I'm the fifth or
sixth seller of the property, being completely unaware of the fact that
I've got to include disclosure once again.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
MR. LEWIS: Once you get attenuated it becomes a difficult
thing to enforce, but we have actually discussed this as a matter of
general law before.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If it's filed with the property
record, it doesn't depend upon any subsequent buyer or purchaser to
disclose it. It's there.
MR. LEWIS: As a covenant or something like that --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. LEWIS: -- that would run with the land.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not just -- it's not just the idea
that you have a method of determining what your tax assessment, or
tax rate or assessment is. It is that you are purchasing property in a
special district that has the right to tax you and make assessments
independent of your county government. And I guess those kinds of
disclosures would be very nice to have on any property record to
minimize problems with respect to people who purchase property,
they're not really understanding what they're --
MR. LEWIS: Point taken. I think my client is agreeing at the
very outset of this, if this bill becomes a law, there would be no
Page 125
October 28, 2003
objection to filing a covenant that covered the 21,000 odd acres --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay
MR. LEWIS: -- that disclosed exactly what you're saying, and
then as you said would run with the land, every title search would
cause it to pop up.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That would make me feel a lot
more comfortable. Because I can see the day when some disgruntled
property owner there is going to come into this room and say why are
you taxing us so much, and why did you give this authority to these
people? I didn't know it.
MR. LEWIS: That's an easy change to make, and I can put that
right in the legislation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I've asked the same thing
be done, by the way for the PDR program in the rural lands area so
that people understand what those PDR's really mean, if they lost
them.
Okay. Thank you very much. You've answered my question.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commission Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. My question has
to do with the furore roads that would go in the area. Are you
prepared to donate the right-of-way for six lanes for Oil Well Road
or whatever roads that we may need, because I'm looking for the
public good that's going to come to the rest of the world.
MR. CONRECODE: The answer to the question is yes to the
extent that we could identify roads. What we've struggled with is --
would be any road we might need answered, because we can't define
that. But we have agreed to work with your planning staff and your
transportation staff to try to identify whatever other corridors and
facilities there might be out there. And we have from now until, I
guess, 30 days after the bill passes to finalize that. But we're
committed to working with your staff. We have agreed to up to a
six-lane road for Immokalee Road and up to a six-lane road for Oil
Page 126
October 28, 2003
Well Road, because those are the only two pieces that we could
clearly define.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. And those are -- we're
talking about a donation. Not in lieu of impact fees, or not in lieu of
anything else.
MR. CONRECODE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So that's public good. I'd like
something like that.
MR. CONRECODE: We've agreed to that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I also had a couple questions,
three questions if I may. The first one is what are the standards for
land management that will be in place? That's something that -- I
know it said there were some standards, but I didn't know what they
were, and also who will -- will there be a third party to confirm that
those land management standards are met.
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am. The land standards and the
restoration program all have to run through your County staff, and
those have been adopted into the comp. plan and LDC, in terms of
the specifics of that. And your staff, is my best guess, is the only
ones that will be monitoring that. I don't know that there's a third
party.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you do have a land management
plan in place?
MR. CONRECODE: Well, we have to develop that as part of
the stewardship program.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So exotics removed and all
that?
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am, and some specific restoration
areas that are currently in agricultural production, but have been
identified as an area of widening the Camp Keais Strand and Slough
to provide for better habitat movement through that area.
Page 127
October 28, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was a very -- a big concern
with me. The second question is will the BCC itself have any veto
power, I mean, say, for instance, you know, somebody else is owning
your land, and it's something that we find, and maybe we won't be in
place, but future BCC's, find that it is just not in the benefit -- to the
best benefit of Collier County or for its citizens and if there's just one
small group that's managing this will the BCC have any veto power?
MR. CONRECODE: I think the veto power comes about in a
number of ways. You will still continue to act on every land use
decision that's ever made, you and your staff will act on all the rural
land stewardship area activities, the creation of sending areas, and
receiving areas and so on, that all has to pass through you.
And then, lastly, anything that the district does, any work of the
district needs to be consistent with your comprehensive plan. So if
there's something that's going to happen out there relative to your
comprehensive plan, it will require it be either consistent or we work
with you to amend that.
MR. LEWIS: Just to amplify that a little, the fact that we're
proposing a district doesn't mean it's exempt from anything, just as
Collier Enterprises would have to come in and get permits from this
county. If the district as the district, if it was proposing to do
anything, to build infrastructure, they would need any permits from
you that an ordinary citizen would need. So you get -- you get the
review and you get the okay with the nod.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And my last question would
be and I had to have this written out so that I didn't mess it up.
Language needs to be included in this proposed legislation that will
allow the governor to have the power to remove or repeal individuals
from this board. The governor has the ability to repeal and appoint
members to the Collier County board of County Commissioners and
I would like to see that the governor has the ability to do the same
with this board.
Page 128
October 28, 2003
MR. LEWIS: I don't have an objection to that. I'll go and
check. I believe, actually, Chapter 189 right now authorizes the
governor to remove special district governing board members for
misfeasance, malfeasance, criminal activity and the like in office. I'll
double check that, but that's not -- that's not objectionable. If it
doesn't exist in general law, it's not objectionable to put it in this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very good. That's it for me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a couple of other questions
here. How many statewide districts are very similar to the one that is
before us today?
MR. CONRECODE: There are 1,200 districts statewide. The
ones that provide for a broader or more than just a single use, that are
of this size and have some of the same similar powers, I've identified
seven of them, specifically.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And where are those located?
MR. CONRECODE: You're testing me now. The -- let me go
back a couple of slides. Because we've identified -- there's a couple
in Palm Beach County. The Bonaventure Development District in
Broward County, and the Indian Trace Development District in
Broward County, the North Palm Beach County Improvement
District in Palm Beach County and the Cold Springs in Marion
County, as well as -- there is --
MR. LEWIS: They're actually-- I can think of two more in
Palm Beach County, the Seminole Improvement District, and the
Indian Trail Improvement District. They are -- they evolved-- many
of these districts, actually, predate Chapter 189, but they've come
along and codified their acts in most cases, so they're effectively
Chapter 189 districts.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And they're very similar to what --
in nature to what you want to accomplish here?
MR. LEWIS: Yes, sir.
Page 129
October 28, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The other question I have
is will the citizens of Collier County have the ability to venture into
these areas?
MR. LEWIS: Yes. The district in and of itself can't, again,
create a picket line or anything like that. They are like any other
government, however, if they build infrastructure, yeah, that needs
security, they're capable of fencing it and things like that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're not looking at a 22,000 acre
gated community here?
MR. LEWIS: No, no, sir. The policy as to whether you, you
know, whether Collier County wants a gated community in this part
of the world is essentially your policy. The district -- the district is
truly a facilitator of what, you know, what the County and the
landowner agreed to, but that's the bottom line.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
speakers?
MS. FILSON: Two.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Okay. We have how many
Please call off the first one.
MS. FILSON: Nicole Ryan. She will be followed by Douglas
Rankin.
MS. RYAN: Good afternoon. For the record, Nicole Ryan here
on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. First of all the
Conservancy would like to acknowledge the efforts made by Collier
Enterprises to work with us and work through our list of concerns. I
think for the most part we have come to agreement on our concerns,
and we certainly do appreciate the inclusion of an environmental
representative on the district's initial governing board. We think that
will be very helpful. The one area where we still have a bit of a
concern is under section 3 l-B, and it discusses the powers of the
district, and it says in part to acquire by purchase, gift or
condemnation real and personal property, either or both within or
without the district. The Conservancy would like to see inclusion of
Page 130
October 28, 2003
language that states that the condemnation of real or personal
property shall be subject to the approval of the Collier County board
of County Commissioners, for any potential condemnation outside of
the boundaries of the special district. I know that some safeguards are
in place to insure that the County does have some oversight. But
we'd really like to have it specified right in there. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why would you want to condemn
any property outside the district?
MR. LEWIS: There are any number of good reasons, and the
fact of the matter is, again, I'll go back to the authority that you have
in your comp. plan and regulation. If we -- if we as the district come
to you and say, okay, this is our -- this is our water management plan,
this is ultimately where the surface waters are going to discharge, if
the plan doesn't include property that the district owns, or that the
landowner owns, and we're unable to negotiate an outright sale, we
would have the power of condemnation to take it.
I told, Tom, more often than not that comes up with probably --
with respect to acquiring legal positive outfall whenever you've got a
water management plan than anything else.
Second to that sometimes a missing piece of roadway that you
need to build, the district doesn't stop or its -- its plan will be bound
by the bounds of the district, but the infrastructure that we may have
to -- have to finance and construct, service it, and, again, this would
be infrastructure that you would direct, may go off site. It literally
may go to properties that the district doesn't own, or that the
landowner doesn't own. So it does -- it does happen from time to
time. The last-- my last experience with it, again, was acquiring a
couple of 100 feet of legal positive outfall to the Caloosahatchee
River in Lee County for the LeHigh Water Control District, and
there, again, we worked through that both with Lee County and with
South Florida Water Management District, but then the Water
Page 131
October 28, 2003
Control District was ultimately the condemning authority. And there
we had a landowner that simply wouldn't agree to negotiate on an
appraised property.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I can understand how that might
happen, but I am sympathetic to the request that that come before the
board of County Commissioners. I am really reluctant to see
condemnation authority to extend beyond the district itself.
MS. ASHTON: Commissioner, if I may, in the other special
district with Ave Maria it does specifically provide that any
condemnation which is outside the district requires a super majority
vote of the board of County Commissioners and they had approved
that language and I'd recommend the same language be in this one as
well.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Next speaker.
MS. FILSON: Your final, Mr. Chairman, is Douglas Rankin.
MR. RANKIN: Yes. I'm here both individually and as
president of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association. Most
of you-all are acquainted with us --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The court reporter is not.
MR. RANKIN: I'm going to go -- we are the only civic
association representing the Golden Gate Estates. We've been in
existence since the '70's. We have hundreds of members and our
newsletter has a circulation of about 500 families. Unfortunately we
have -- we -- first all of all I want to say that we're very pleased with
Barron Collier corporations. We've always had good relationships
with them. In fact, we're getting ready to probably assist one of their
proposals regarding an FP&L line.
However, given the speed and other questions about how only
the 8th district in the State of Florida to be like this, or 9th or
however many it is, and of which this has come forth, and the limited
ability that my organization and other civic associations in this area
Page 132
October 28, 2003
have had to even look at this, we have real concerns with this being
adopted at this point. And so my entire membership last month voted
unanimously all those in attendance to be against this.
We did manage to finally meet with Mr. Conrecode, our board
did, at a special meeting called at his request, since this was
happening so quickly we couldn't have another board or membership
meeting, and one thing that concerns me is Mr. Conrecode told my
board at that meeting that condemnation power would be removed.
And I don't know what happened. I don't know what happened. But
he told my entire board last week, late last week this would be
removed, now it's still there. So I've got real concerns with that,
because Golden Gate Estates, the entire eastern boundary of this is
Golden Gate Estates, that I represent, and we have dozens of
roadways that dead-end at their property. And you start giving them
condemnation authority outside their district, we got no end of
trouble, not to mention some other holes that exist in the
comprehensive plan that we, unfortunately, got victimized on
recently with the FP&L substation that we got landed on us with
absolutely no approval of this board or of the Planning
Commissioner, because that's what the comprehensive plan currently
provides, because a lot of your essential services basically -- since
you approved most of them, you took out the requirement for those
items to come before you of the Planning Commission. But whoever
put that in, which predated you, that change was in '91, didn't occur
to them that other people did that too, and now you're creating an
800-pound gorilla, no offense in characterization, but it shares our
entire eastern boundary that's going to have a lot of these authorities
to, and it scares the bejesus out of us. But I first want to -- what's
happened to the condemnation authority.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can you state your name for the
record.
MR. RANKIN: Doug Rankin. I already did. Sorry.
Page 13 3
October 28, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't hear.
MR. CONRECODE: Commissioners, do you want me to
answer questions?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think it's going to be removed.
MR. CONRECODE: I think you've addressed the
condemnation issue.
MR. RANKIN: Okay. Anyway, I represent a neighborhood
that currently has a population of one and a half times the City of
Naples and is the fastest growing part of the second fastest growing
community in the nation. We have a lot of concerns, and a lot of my
concerns were correctly placed by the Naples Daily News in the
newspaper, I want to do them a favor for doing it correctly. There are
also some other concerns I saw, such as concerns of yours,
Commissioner Henning, about a city. I still think that regardless of
village, they could incorporate all or part of this next to us. I'd have
some real concerns about that. I have concerns about roads. I have
concerns about water and sewer plants. I have concerns about them
connecting to one or more of those dozens of roadways.
This matter did not come at all before the Golden Gate Master
Plan Committee that was just over. This matter has not come at all
before the Fifth District Association which is a new association that
Commissioner Coletta put together that is of all the homeowners
associations in this area. They're not even meeting after hearing
about this, until tomorrow night. You're about ready to approve one
of the 8th ones in this state that has -- that's going to look like this,
and, basically, you're creating a new government next to us that can
do a lot of things that we're very concerned about. And like I said,
the Colliers have always been a good neighbor, but I've got to be
concerned about the future.
Also, I think it was you, Commissioner Coyle, that brought up
the MSTU that you were going to have to dissolve. Well, the only
trouble is once you create this, you might be able to approve a
Page 134
October 28, 2003
change that they want, but you can't change it and you can't dissolve
it any more, or the legislature can do that.
So once this pandora's box is open, you're going to have a whole
lot of trouble closing it.
This -- also, I'm a board certified real estate attorney. I
represent a lot of purchasers. Homeowner and condo disclosures are
currently mandated by state law, homeowners is relatively new.
There is no required disclosure for district, and quite frankly a lot of
citizens when they're buying, because I represent them, I have to sit
there and explain it to them, and a lot of title companies and
attorneys don't.
So I think that that needs to be in there for all-level purchasers
because I have a lot of people that get real surprised about things like
that. I think we're being rushed to judgment here. I think if we
worked through a number of these unintended consequences and
these concerns, we might be able to make this work. But I'm real
concerned about doing this in such a quick hurry, I've got Waterways
and Orange Tree and other developments that are near here that
haven't even had a chance to vote or address this. It wasn't addressed
in the Golden Gate Master Plan. There's no -- we've got these plans,
beautiful plan here, beautiful plan here and no correlation in the
middle, in fact, when I was on the Golden Gate Master Plan
Committee for almost two years --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll have to ask you to wrap it up.
MR. RANKIN: -- two years, we never coordinated with them,
the rural land committee. We asked to, but we were told we couldn't.
I think this needs to be looked at. I think we need to have some
more time, because there are a number-- them being governed by
your comprehensive plan, it sounds good, but there are a number of
things they can do under your comprehensive plan right now without
your or the planning commissioners' approval, and that concerns me
also. Maybe we can work through those, too, because we want to
Page 135
October 28, 2003
work with them. I just owe a fiduciary duty to a lot of homeowners
in a big area to make sure that we don't have a problem down the
road, because in the past, unfortunately, Golden Gate Estates has
been a dumping ground, literally for the landfill and two water plants
and all sorts of other nonsense, and we're trying to avoid that in the
future. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Okay. Any other
questions?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I've got a couple of
questions I'd like to ask.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Some of those concerns that
Mr. Rankin brought up, I'd like to have you address them. Especially
the one there on the -- I know about the master plan that went out of
existence before you got your plan up and running to the point you
had a chance to present it. But is there a rush here? What is the
hurry? Why is it this month it has to take place and not next?
MR. CONRECODE: Well, the thing that's driving the time line
today is the November 25th legislation delegation date that this
would have to be heard in order to be in the legislative cycle which
begins in March. The advertising deadline that we are faced with is
November 5th to have the full package, even as it's been amended
today for advertisement with the legislative delegation or for the
legislative delegation hearing.
So those are the immediate time lines. The only other time
sensitive issue is your comp. plan amendment triggers of five years
for the early preservation of the lands and the review by the
Department of Community Affairs of which one of those years has
passed. The second year will have passed on the current schedule, if
we're in the cycle for the current legislative session coming up.
MR. COLETTA: Okay. A couple of other questions, too. The
roads that deadend at Desoto there at this point in time, what's to
Page 136
October 28, 2003
prevent you from hooking to those roads indiscriminately and having
your traffic coming out of any one particular street.
MR. CONRECODE: Well, the County adopts a long-range
transportation plan as a part of its comprehensive plan that we have
to be consistent with. So we just can't just willy-nilly go about doing
things as has been contemplated. Everything has to come through
you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Everything, I mean, you don't
have the right to condemnation, we've agreed that that's being
removed.
MR. CONRECODE: Right. That's being rewritten.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That doesn't exist anymore?
MR. CONRECODE: Right.
MR. LEWIS: That would come back to you also.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What about the placement on
your own property of the sewer and water treatment plant that may
border up close to Desoto where we have people living?
MR. CONRECODE: I had shared with Mr. Rankin a specific
paragraph in the bill that requires the facilities of the district to be
located within the geographic confines of the district.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And with the permission of the
Chair, I do have some questions, but they relate to how the legislative
body is going to be handling this. I'd like to know if I -- with his
permission also, ask our representative, Mr. Goodlette, to come up. I
might be able to ask him some questions. If he wouldn't feel
imposed upon.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't think Representative
Goodlette always has a problem trying to answer any questions for
you, commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: He's one of our great public
servants that's always there at our beck and call. Mr. Goodlette, I
know you are taking your way into the decision of this commission
Page 137
October 28, 2003
to reach your final decision how you're going to proceed with this
along with Representative Mr. Mike Davis, my -- the whole thing is
that Mr. Rankin is correct to a point that this thing is being rushed in
the fact we've got a lot of the public out there that hasn't been able to
interact with us early on. And I also realize this is less than a
complete document. That this is probably going to be changed when
it starts through the process one way or other. How will we have
feedback to you if something terribly goes wrong or if this process is
flawed in a way we can't see at this point in time? Is there some way
we can reach back to you if we approve this today and moved it
forward to the legislative delegation to work with?
MR. GOODLETTE: If I may, Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please.
MR. GOODLETTE: Certainly between now and November the
25th when our delegation is scheduled to meet, if there are any
changes that were -- had taken place, or any of what you might
approve today in concept that you envisioned was not being fully
effectuated as it was presented to us on the 25th, I'm sure I speak for
our entire delegation and its Chairman Mike Davis in telling you we
would consider whatever thoughts you may have, and I can further, I
think, assure you that in conjunction with Mr. Conrecode and their
legal representatives, and likewise with Ave Maria that will follow
that, you know, we would-- we would, you know -- they realize that
a -- that a precursor to the legislative consideration of this plan is a
resolution from this body supporting what it is that the legislature
will be asked to do.
So I think we would keep faith with -- with the -- with the --
with the letter and -- and I think the intent of Florida law in the
establishment of 189 district that would presuppose your continuing
favor of what we're doing that there may be a different way of
articulating that legally.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we might be able to put our
Page 138
October 28, 2003
motion together in some way that leaves a little bit of an opening for
us to be able to address it as a commission on the 25th to the
legislative delegation if we have future questions?
MR. GOODLETTE: That's probably a question that's best
answered by your legal staff, but I would expect that we could -- that
we can be responsive and would-- I can certainly speak for the
delegation, myself, and I think the other members in being
responsive to whatever concerns might arise after this meeting, if,
indeed, approval for the resolution adopting this is forthcoming
today.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My whole problem is the fact
that due process, as far as Mr. Rankin has brought up, has not been
totally satisfied yet, and now between now and the 25th is the time
that you need to get the show on the road and be able to get out there,
and if we run into serious question that can't be answered, then we
can bring it back to our -- the delegation in November, and my first
invitation to you would be for tomorrow night, when the Civic
Advisory Meeting takes place over at the Agriculture Extension
building, if you could possibly make that, for a brief presentation to
be able to answer questions for the people that live in the surrounding
areas.
MR. GOODLETTE: If I can get the details, I'll be happy to do
it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, and this is going to give
me a little bit of level of comfort. I understand that there's a time line
that you have to go forward with, and if we miss it, then we're talking
probably another whole year this has to be moved to the future, and
in that way it would be more work for you. I have to make sure that I
meet the needs of the people I represent. So that's where I am with
this right now. Mr. Goodlette, I appreciate it so much you taking the
time to come up here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Goodlette.
Page 139
October 28, 2003
MR. GOODLETTE: I think one of the questions that you may
have asked me to address that I didn't answer and that is continuing
from this day forward, our legislative delegation hearing is on
November 25th, I think one of the time lines pointed that out, but it
doesn't stop there, thereafter it goes to the full legislature. It is a bill
that would be advanced by our local legislative delegation, but there,
you know, there are additional forums, legislative forums,
committees to whom -- before whom that proposed legislation would
be heard in Tallahassee, and continuing opportunity for public input
would exist up until at least March when regular session of the
legislature convenes and normally local bills aren't heard the first
week of the session, so it would probably be a process that will not
exhaust itself, if you will, Mr. Chairman, and members, until
mid-April time frame, I would expect, and, again, continuing
opportunity for public input in that process.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS. We have a board meeting on the
18th; is that correct?
MR. MUDD: 18th of November, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is there any reason why we can't
come to a conclusion on the 18th and that way we open the door of
opportunity for other people that have concerns about this. Would
that sill give you enough time if-- whatever we come up with on the
18th that you would still have enough time?
MR. CONRECODE: I think we would address the one meeting
for -- that Commissioner Coletta had mentioned, but I think the next
meeting of the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association is November
22nd.
MR. RANKIN: That's not an issue. I would do my best, and I
don't mind, Mr. Chairman, I'm just trying to respond, I'll do my best
to inform my members. What I also wanted just as an area first in
the community who wants to be fair, I want to make sure these other
Page 140
October 28, 2003
boards that I haven't had a chance to talk to, you haven't either, and
all that have the right to say and weigh in, and also the very fine
questions I heard and asked here, get some concrete answers and
everybody here have an opportunity to think through the unintended
consequences of what's happening here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you. Let me --
Commissioner Coyle wants to respond to Commissioner Coletta's --
or some of the concerns that we have here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I really -- Representative
Goodlette said it perfectly that there -- this process goes through a
public hearing process. This bill can be pulled by the sponsor at any
point in time before the final vote, if there's a fatal flaw found in this
process. The real problem is in my opinion not whether the state law
has the necessary protective measures concerning the creation of a
special district. The real concern is where the roads are going to be
development, where the sewer plant is going to be developed, where
the water treatment plant is going to be -- you can't answer that. You
can't answer it this year. You can't answer it next. You won't be able
to answer it probably for three or four years from now. So do not
develop any false expectations here that by delaying this a month,
that we're somehow going to get an answer to all of the questions.
We can't tell you where we're going to build another water/sewer
plant 15 years from now, I don't think. But the important thing is
that we take a close look at this proposal to determine if there are
fatal flaws in it, and with the correction of some of the things that
we've discussed today, it appears to me that -- it would be safe to let
it proceed, and we will continue to follow it as it goes through the
legislative process and if we find other serious objections to it, we
can bring that to the attention of our legislative delegation. But
please don't expect that we're going to be able to answer questions
like which road is going to be connected to which road, and were
you're going to put a water treatment plant or sewage treatment plant,
Page 141
October 28, 2003
that's not something that can possibly happen until such time as the
district is created, the board is constituted, the plans are developed,
and then these things become known. And as they come up, we as a
County Commission will review them in public session and people
have an opportunity to comment on them, and we can make sure
they're consistent with our comprehensive plan, and if we need to
modify our comprehensive plan as we go forward, we certainly can
do it. We've done it in the past. We're continuing to do it today.
And so I think -- I think we can deal with this fairly well.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I agree with you in some
instances, Commissioner Coyle, but the -- one of the big concerns is
that this was all thrown upon us in the last -- in about a month's time.
And we're looking at a total here of over 33,000 acres that we're
going to -- when you act -- look at both sides, we're going to address
Ave Maria, we're going to address -- we're in the process of
addressing this one, we're looking at 33,000 acres which is probably
about a third of Collier County. And, in the fact that we've been
scrambling to get as much information as possible, and I know that
the Collier Enterprises has been working diligently trying to provide
us with as much information as possible, there's been a lot of
information that I feel that -- maybe that we're privy to that a lot of
the citizens haven't been privy to, and I think that's where we stand at
this point in time, and that I think it's very beneficial that everybody
have the same amount of information, whether you take out an ad --
not an ad but there's something written in the paper in regards to
exactly what's going to be perceived in this whole concept, I think
that would be beneficial. I think just as us commissioners, when we
started into this program, we were looking at as much information as
possible, trying to read into it as much as possible to figure out
exactly what this big magic square was, and as you can see we had
questions even today as we're addressing this issue, and so I think
Page 142
October 28, 2003
that's where I -- that's where I'm leaning on this is that we want to
make sure that we're doing the right thing, because this is something
that's going forth and we as commissioners are put in a position here
to make sure that we do the right choice.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And we still have many a
process to comment on it as it goes through. So I think we've beat
this one up enough. I don't know if anybody wants to make a
motion.
MR. MUDD: Well, I think I need to let Stan Litsinger talk just
a couple of seconds, just so he gets the planning prospective in, and
you understand that piece and then I think I don't have anything else
to say.
MR. LITSINGER: For the record, Stan Litsinger,
Comprehensive Planning Director. I have to admit I feel like the
quarterback on one of my favorite college teams about a week ago
that was calling signals when the ball was snapped past his head. But
it's not often that we do this, and I've listened to the discussions and
the fine presentation by Collier Enterprises folks and you're going to
hear another one from the Barron Collier Companies here in a
moment. I want to make a quick disconnect, which we often don't
want to do between comprehensive planning in your rural land
stewardship area and these districts. Yes, these districts are before
you because we adopted this far-reaching land management, land
development plan for 195,000 acres in very significant natural
resource value areas in order to provide guidelines for the manner in
which those lands can be developed, but the other side of the coin is
you could be standing here today hearing the pleadings or petition for
you to not object to this legislation if there was no rural land
stewardship district. There is an independence between the viability
or advisability of one of these districts and the implementation of
your rural land stewardship area which is going to be very successful.
I believe Tom mentioned that one of the reasons that the Collier
Page 143
October 28, 2003
Enterprises side of the fence wants to go forward with their district, is
yes, within your comp. plan in the first five years we have an early
interest bonus process where additional credits are awarded for
establishment of stewardship sending areas. Now, keeping in mind
that these 22,000 acres are all eligible for a process of applying for
designation of stewardship sending areas, where we have -- we have
identified the natural resource endorsees and stewardship credits will
be generated within various SSA's, however many they determine
that they want to apply for, within the Big Cypress District. Then
there's the process of the stewardship receiving area process that also
comes through the board of County Commissioners where credits are
applied in order to entitle or enable land to be developed in one of the
four rural forms of development that we have all identified. The long
and short of it is is that it's been like a whirlwind in the last several
weeks. We have been working with both Collier Enterprises and
Barron Collier on the other side of the fence here for a little over a
month or so, a little more, and with your direction on October 14th, it
became very intense. And I would tell you, and the County Manager,
of course, will correct me if I'm wrong, we do recommend to you the
resolution that we have for you on pages 14 and 15 of your agenda
package for this, because we believe that we got very significant
commitments from the Collier Enterprises organization relative to
needs that we have that are very present in the rural land stewardship
area now, specifically relative to very forthright right-of-way
donation without impact fee credits, significant issues that we needed
to resolve relative to our transportation network out there in the rural
area. And we still have our comp. plan into place. We have a
resolution and a bill that -- that insures that the comp. plan cannot be
bypassed. It insures, if you note on the resolution, I believe it's Item
3-A under the Board of County Commissioners hereby resolves that
changes to this district legislation will not happen without the board's
acquiescence and approval in the future, even after you go through
Page 144
October 28, 2003
the legislative process to create this district and not being an
advocate for this particular district or the one that's going to follow in
a few minutes, I can tell you that the County Manager and his staff
and the County attorney working with the representatives of Collier
Enterprises have worked diligently in arriving at a resolution that we
can recommend to you that is very brief and concise and identifies
the planning goals that we will achieve through the implementation
of this district, but also provides the assurances and commitments
that we need to make it a reality.
One other note I wanted to make a note about the -- what is the
possibility, we're talking about 22,000 acre gated community. That's
not going to happen. We have 194,000 acres out there, 195,000
acres, 93,000 acres are in private ownership and are not habitat
sending areas or flow way sending areas. That's the maximum
number of acres that are even eligible to receive credits and be
developed in one of the four forms of rural development. To do that
you need about 135,000 credits. Now, as an example our current
application that's in to create four SSA's and I'm not going to bore
you with a lot more facts, but I've got a few more, the current SSA
application that we have in now and we have three of them in that
you folks will be seeing right after Christmas, only generates 8,000
credits. So the bottom line is that in our planning process up to
development of the rural land stewardship amendments, we
anticipated that we'd possibly only see six to 10,000 acres developed
in the 20 -- 25 planning horizon. I don't believe we had Ave Maria
present in that calculation but still, the magnitudes are still far below
22,000 acres or the next 10,000 acres that you're going to hear about,
but you have -- definitely have a plan in place that will insure that
number one, I believe Commissioner Halas, someone mentioned
about stewardship, the actual stewardship of these lands that are set
aside for maintenance and habitat preservation and flow way and
water management, yes, there are requirements for management
Page 145
October 28, 2003
plans within your SSA and SRA process, independent of the
District's operations.
So, we have assurances in place, and I think that we can move
forward and be successful in implementing those. So I would say
that staff is recommending to you the resolution on pages 14 and 15
of your agenda package for this particular item, and in the
forthcoming presentation on the next district we would probably be
recommending that you adopt a resolution of no objection to that
district also. Maybe we can have some clarification from one of our
attorneys here, but it's my understanding that the legislation cannot
forward unless you do not object or there is a letter indicating that
you do not object. I do not know that there's availability of a gray
area of we may not object once we get into a legislative session.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thanks for the education on
the comprehensive plan so we get back to the districts and what we're
talking about, I appreciate it. Ms. Ashton, do you have anything?
MS. ASHTON: I would recommend that if you decide to go
forward I need some clarification on the eminent domain outside the
district boundaries, whether you want that eliminated or whether
you're comfortable with requiring a super majority vote of the board
of County Commissioners, and I also think that, you know, you do
need to decide today whether you're going to go forward with the
resolution of no objection, or do nothing, and pursuant to the statute,
they cannot go forward unless they have a resolution stating you
have no objection, and that the act is consistent with the land
development code and growth management plan. We have tried to
put in protections in the bill for the board of County Commissioners
so that -- under the current statute once they go forward, if you were
to issue your no objection today, any amendments do not require
another no objection; however, the district proponents have agreed to
put in the bill a provision that if they try to make changes that are
inconsistent with your land development code or growth
Page 146
October 28, 2003
management plan, it requires it to come back to the board of County
Commissioners for no objection. That's, you know, not something
currently provided by statute and that's, you know, to give you some
comfort that you would continued to have some control over the land
development regulations.
They have also agreed to donate the right-of-way for the
six-laning of Immokalee Road and Oil Well Road and also agreed to
accept the stormwater into their system without impact fee credits.
Those are some things that staff and our office have been able to get
on behalf of the County and wanted to make sure you were aware of
that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta,
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Don't go away. I got a
question for you. Would it be appropriate to say something to the
effect on their motion that you approve without objection but also
recognizing the fact that this is a long process that will be going on
for some time, and that many public meetings will be taking place.
Is it okay to make a statement along with the --
MS. ASHTON: I think the better way to do it would be to
approve -- or to issue a no objection to the form of the bill attached to
your resolution. So if they have to make changes, then, technically
your no objection doesn't apply to that -- that bill. That's the way that
I would recommend it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, if I can help
you out, you always have the option to bring it back for
reconsideration. So I think your objective is for these folks to get out
to the civic association and if they don't, I mean you can bring it back
to the next meeting and say, I want to reconsider our action.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, what's the limits on
reconsideration?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: One month.
Page 147
October 28, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is it a month or two weeks?
MR. WEIGEL: The reconsideration ordinance provides that a
person voting with a majority may, in fact, make a request of the
County Manager no later than six days prior to the next board
meeting, and always within 30 days of the initial action taken, and
it's a two-step process, however and if it comes back for a mirror vote
on reconsideration at the first board meeting and at the second board
meeting thereafter, the matter in chief is voted on as to be'
reconsidered or not. So from the time frames that we have in place
right now for regularly scheduled board meetings, the next meeting
being November 18th, I don't think consideration lends itself as a tidy
process.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: He answered the question. Thank
you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, but wait, if I can just
separate from the motion itself that's going to take place. Do we
have an understanding the fact we're going to be doing a lot of
business in the future on many, many different items, but you're
going to put this show on the road and go through whatever civic
associations out there that will care to meet with you, whatever
period of time, even during legislative session, even after November,
that you attend those meetings as part of this process, due process
going on?
MR. CONRECODE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And you also recognize the fact
that even though we may, at this point in time, come up with no
objection and pass it and we can change our mind, or we can go to
our legislative body and appeal to them, the fact that we have found
something that's not consistent with what we understood it to be?
MR. CONRECODE: Yes. I think Representative Goodlette
stated that, as well.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
Page 148
October 28, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what legal staff is saying that
you've gone through all -- read all of the documentation, and you feel
very comfortable with what's before us today?
MR. WEIGEL: We didn't say it in quite those words. But we
did say that we read it all, the staff has, not I personally, but we read
it all, reflected on it, we certainly have talked between staff and
myself, and that it would seem appropriate for the board to adopt a
resolution of no objection, also stating that it's consistent with the
growth management plan. The additional caveats that we've
discussed essentially have been agreed upon in the record for the
most part, I think, by the petitioner to go into the special act itself as
drafted, and I note, pardon the length here, but I note that the
petitioner representatives, as well as Representative Goodlette have
indicated that the legislative process is not a static process, but
subject to far more input, tweaking and potential change to further
assist the County when more specifics and questions come before it.
So, yes, the County Attorney Office believes that it's not merely
legally sufficient, but that -- although this isn't part of our normal
review, that we can recommend to the board that it is appropriate to
approve it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Do you have anything,
Commission Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no, I don't.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a -- I'll make the
motion to approve this without objection based upon what I've been
told here today.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: With the caveat that they don't have
eminent domain outside the district?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. They made that
statement and we have that down on paper, I guess, that's part of the
agreement now. And also the right-of-way for the roads. Legal?
Page 149
October 28, 2003
MR. WEIGEL: It's the language that Heidi had read to you
about super majority vote of the County Commission.
MR. MUDD: There's three items that the commissioners talked
about in the bill that you need to have in here, and I wrote them
down. One was to talk about condemnation outside of the district--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MR. MUDD: -- and that basically they can't have it unless it's a
super majority vote of this Board of County Commissioners. The
second, there's covenants with the land that, basically, specified that
it's a special district of 189, and that they have taxing rights and a
taxing authority up to 10 mills, and they said that they would do that.
And the other issue that Mr. Terry Lewis said that he would look
into is the governor's authority over the board members to make sure
that the governor's authority over the board members of the special
district are in keeping with the same authorities that the governor has
over the board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The last one was the land
management standards, right, that there would be somebody -- that
the land management standards would be in place and that there
would be a third party overseeing the confirmation that they were
being followed.
MR. CONRECODE: Well, those land standards are already in
place in your land development codes in your comprehensive plan
amendments related to the eastern lands, and it's more of a second
party, second party being Collier County staff, permitting staff.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hang on, is that included in your
motion, Commissioner Coletta -- I'm sorry, Commissioner Fiala go
ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was it, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'll second that motion.
Page 150
October 28, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Halas. Heidi, do you have
anything for us?
MS. HEIDI: No, I don't. I think I've gotten the four changes
that you want in the bill, and I'll confirm that they're, you know,
included in the bill that we attach to the resolution that becomes part
of your record for the minutes and reports department.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's one more thing about grants,
you'll work with the County on seeking grants? You'll work with us
so we're not competing?
MR. CONRECODE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Is that included in you
motion, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. All in favor of the motion
signify by saying, aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed. Motion carries five, zero.
Item #10H
RESOLUTION 2003-381 RECOMMENDATION THAT THE
BOARD ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF NO OBJECTION TO THE
ENACTMENT OF A BILL BY THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE
CREATING AN INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT UNDER
CHAPTER 189, FLORIDA STATUTES, TO BE KNOW AS THE
AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP COMMUNITY DISTRICT-
Page 151
October 28, 2003
ADOPTED W/CHANGES
And I hope the next one we can stay with the -- what we're being
asked -
MR. MUDD: The next--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- and stay out of the comprehensive
plan.
MR. MUDD: -- the next item on your agenda is number 10-H
and it's a recommendation that the board adopt a resolution of no
objection to the enactment of the bill by the Florida legislature
creating an independent special district under Chapter 189, Florida
Statutes, to be known as the Ave Maria Stewardship Community
District.
Mr. Stan Litsinger will present it.
MR. LITSINGER: Thank you again. Commissioners, this is the
second round of the Chapter 189 petitioning you to adopt a resolution
which we have recommended to you of no objection to the legislative
enactment of a bill, creating the Ave Maria Stewardship Community
District. I can here again report to you, and as you -- and as a result
of the late delivery of an agenda package involving commitment by
the Barron Collier Companies, and also the final resolution that we
drafted working with the Barron Collier Companies, their
representatives, the Ave Maria folks, and the County Manager, we
believe that we have, again, a resolution that we can recommend to
you as an acceptable commitment, significant commitment here,
again, by the Barron Collier Companies and Ave Maria folks relative
to our infrastructure needs, particularly approximate to the Ave
Maria University in town, Oil Well Road, Camp Keais Road, which
is going to permit us to bring these projects into your schedule of
capital improvements and into your road development program much
sooner than they would have been realized without this agreement.
We believe that the bill that you are going to hear about by Mr.
Page 152
October 28, 2003
-- from Mr. Van Assenderp very shortly here, we believe is
well-crafted. I'm sure, though, that you will mention some of the
concerns that you have relative to the issues of eminent domain. I
believe in this particular bill they may have been addressed.
We do not, here, again, see this as a direct link to the
development process of your rural land stewardship area or Ave
Maria town and university. You have a separate SRA process, and in
this particular case, a pending development of regional impact
process, which is also running parallel to the process of the
establishment of the Ave Maria District, which will help them make
it a reality, as well.
But with that I will introduce Mr. Van Assenderp, who I believe
is going to give you some details on their proposal.
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: Thank you, Mr. Litsinger. May I ask
you to assist me on how I put this on the graph. We were saving time
and Mr. Sansbury said for me to just proceed, since I'm so
technically proficient.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, we'll go
through briefly just to save time, some provisions in the act that
we've shared with you. Mr. Sansbury and I have had the opportunity
to meet with each of you, your excellent staff, your excellent County
Attorney, and many of the stakeholders, neighbors and others who
are interested in what we are about.
So I'll go through a few questions that each one of you has
raised and that others have raised, and that have been raised in the
media, all of which are good strong questions. And I will try real
briefly just to list to you where they're addressed in the proposed act
that we're going to present to the legislative delegation. One
preliminary comment, this district is based upon a 190 Community
Development District Charter that you have used many, many times
here by ordinance in this County, and with which you're extremely
comfortable and with which you have worked very well, but it is
Page 153
October 28, 2003
geared toward this community, the Ave Maria community, and that's
why we wanted to use, basically, the charter of a 190 Community
Development District, but we added a few additional innovative
matters that we have shared with you, and with others, so that we can
help produce under the rural lands overlay requirements and
regulations something unique probably in this country, and that is a
private university in such a sensitive rural land overlay area, with a
government entity that exists to carry out your development
requirements and considerations on that property.
Let's go over a few of the questions. I enjoyed working with
Ms. Ashton, and we have at page 13, in section 2, subsection 4,
paragraph D, the Resolution to which she referred in the act that says
that there cannot be any amendment to the fact that your county
plans or your development orders and your zoning control to this act,
absent an affirmative resolution from you.
We have also put in, Mr. Chairman, in section 4, subsection 8,
paragraph D at page 3 5, the fact that the district is mandated to
coordinate with the board of County Commissioners on any grants. I
do echo the comments that Mr. Lewis made. I think this is a good
addition as well.
Third, in no particular order, these are just questions that have
come up, many of you have asked about procurement. How will the
district get consultants and purchase goods. That is set forth in pages
of 64 and 65 in section 4, subsection 21, and it's either consultants
competitive negotiations law, or competitive bidding and it's the state
laws that apply. This district -- those two pages must follow those
two completely set -- complete sets of procurement laws, just as any
local government would.
Regarding eminent domain, I agree with Ms. Ashton's
comments and our -- that language is already in our bill at section 4,
subsection 8, paragraph K at page 36. With regard to possible
questions of to whom does this district government have any loyalty,
Page 154
October 28, 2003
is it -- is it a landowner, government. Is it a developer, government.
The answer is no to both questions. As a matter of state law under
section 189.402 in subsection 4-A, it says the district is a legitimate
way for both public and private sectors to provide infrastructure, and
that's precisely the way this board and your staff and we at Barron
Collier Companies have worked. This is a -- as a matter of state law,
this is a government tool available to this county and available to the
landowners and to the university to implement your requirements
concerning the delivery of basic infrastructure.
Also in the same section of the statutes, but in subsection 3-A, it
says that the purpose of such an independent district is to solve the
State's needs with regard to concurrency or as Mr. Litsinger would
say to be a tool to help manage the concurrency management system
of the County in the Ave Maria Community. That is the state law.
And, then, under your regulation for the rural lands overlay, I love
these kinds of numbers, it's 2.2.2.27.10.L-4, your overlay regulations
encourage for fiscal neutrality purposes this kind of district. So it
serves, as matter of law, both this county, it can't exist, it can't have
legal existence if it's not a tool available to this Board of County
Commissioners, and to those landowners, and it implements your
regulation by succeeding to the encouragement to use the district to
provide for fiscal neutrality. The landowners are not dictators, as
someone -- or as has been written. Under the law, yes, there is a one
acre, one vote election of the initial board members because no one
lives out there yet. But we have put into the law at page 26 through
31, detailed provisions of how -- as soon as an area, not the whole
area, but as soon as part of this area becomes urbanized, then that
person elects on a one person, one vote basis that board member, and
it gets to the point of five board members, so we have a way for
transition as soon as the people move out and we use the general law
provisions that were written already by the legislature. Then how
does the district acquire property, especially with the landowners.
Page 155
October 28, 2003
Let's discuss the landowners a little bit more doing the voting. The
landowners can, when no one is out there, vote because they're the
only people there to vote. They own the land, but under the federal
and state constitutions and applicable case law, the voting is only if
there is a single or few limited purpose for the district. This district
has one purpose to put in the infrastructure for the Ave Maria
Community subject to your overlay in your comprehensive plan, and
the inordinate burden is on the initial landowners until the citizens
moved in.
So the district, however, is a government entity. And its board
members are just as much public officials as is each one of you, and,
therefore, subject to the same requirements that other board members
and county and city governments are, including removal by the
governor in those matters. So I agree with Mr. Lewis on that point.
They are public officials. To acquire property, then, in that context
the district must have an appraisal, it must -- there must be a showing
that it meets the public purpose, the lawful public purpose that I just
summarized for the district, and there must be a detailed approved
acquisition agreement discussed at the noticed meetings of the
district board. Then on conflicts of interest, the law says that if a
district board member is an employee or agent of a developer, that's
drafted in this draft, then that is not per se a conflict during those
early years, later it's by one person, one vote, but we're not going to
rely on the Ethics Commission for that, because the law also says
that any conduct that -- notwithstanding the fact of employment that
violates any ethical or conflict of interest consideration is still subject
to the full recourse of the law, and the board, just like here, meets
with its manager and its attorneys, its engineers and there be a
decision that is not done without the approval of the staff. And,
again, the purpose of the district is such that it cannot make land use
or zoning decisions or any of the things that would relate to the
developer. So there's not even an opportunity to vote on those kinds
Page 156
October 28, 2003
of matters.
Regarding the sale of bonds, who's liable? Well, as a matter of
law, and also written in section 4, subsection 12, paragraph 8 at page
53 it makes it express that only the district and the landowners are.
Not the County. Under no circumstances may the County and under
no circumstances may the State answer for any liability direct or
indirect for any default on any bonds. It is only the district.
Secondly, what if the bond money is used, as was also
questioned recently, to have a -- as one of you said, a gated
community. Well, first, the law is clear. And I have consistently
advised all of the 190 districts that we represent here in this county to
the following effect, one, if the district owns a facility, or B, even if
it doesn't own it, but the facility was built or is even maintained by
using money from tax free bonds, that facility is public and public
doesn't mean the people who live in the district only. Public means
anybody from anywhere in the world. Access to that public cannot
be denied, and there can be regulation, just like a county or a city can
regulate access to a park, but under no circumstances does regulation
rise to the level of denying access. Just because that's the law I'm
tired of having to explain it to my different board members, so we
also put that in the statute that you have in the draft act at section 4,
subsection 32, at page 69, and it summarizes the law that I just
summarized for you. I don't have to explain it to this board anymore
should you vote to a resolution of no objection and should the
legislature pass it, that's one point I don't have to explain to this
board anymore.
On impact fees, I'm tired of having to explain to some of the
other boards that the developer, if there is a county impact fee
ordinance, and it says that for the facilities being constructed you can
get some credit, and if you don't get it, but the district did it, the
district financed it, and the district constructed it, then as the
developer you are not entitled to that credit.
Page 157
October 28, 2003
So I don't have to explain that to this board either should you
adopt the resolution and should it pass the law, because it will also be
-- it is also in the statute. And I was in such a hurry, I'm sorry I don't
have the exact reference, but it is in the statute. I showed it to some
of you when we were visiting there. It is in this proposed act.
Now, what about letting citizens know that if they buy property
within the jurisdiction of this district, and since they are also within
the jurisdiction of your county, what kind of disclosure is there, and
what should we do about that. Well, first is there disclosure? Yes.
And, initially, as the discussion you had a few moments ago, there is
the initial disclosure in bold handwriting right before the signature
block on the contract of purchase. And that, for your reference, is in
section 4, subsection 30 at pages 68 and 69. And it says you can lose
your home for failure to pay -- failure to pay taxes or assessments to
this district government, or to the County or to the School board. It
says that in bold letters, but that, as one of you pointed out, is just to
the initial landowner. What about the subsequent landowners? In
our draft at section 4, subsection 31 at page 69, is a requirement that
as a matter of law the district within its first 90 days of existence
shall file with the Clerk in the records, and the grantor, grantee index,
in the name of the property owner, not in the name of the district, that
comes second. That disclosure, again, that you can lose your
property including homestead property, for failure to pay taxes or
assessments. And anyone who does a title search for the next
subsequent purchase has to follow that disclosure. And that is in
there at those pages. But even there, I don't think that's still enough,
as far as the real world is concerned. And so we have another
provision that we put in there and that is in section 4, subsection 7 at
page 34, full and continuing public disclosure -- full and continuing
public disclosure of all public financing to existing residents, to
prospective residents, and when they become existing residents, to
them. And that is done at a board meeting promulgated by noticed
Page 158
October 28, 2003
rules, so everybody in the world can come help word the rule, and
that gets to anyone, including real estate agents, so that then we
handle once again both the initial and the subsequent landowners or
purchasers and residents.
So, we've gone at it about four different ways, and I've cited in
the act where you can do that. But that's not all of the disclosure. As
you know, I saw the Honorable Guy Carlton up here, giving you
some numbers from his highly efficient operation of his office. One
thing Guy is very concerned about is he'll have a Rotary Club where
he likes to tell his jokes collection before somebody is going to lose
homestead property. But let me tell you how that really works, and
the way it will apply in this district, if the district decides, which it
will decide under this law, that it wants these special assessments
collected the same way property taxes are collected, then there is an
entire other set of public notices, newspaper and US mail. And I
won't take your time to go into them in detail. I know about them.
We're the general counsel to the Tax Collectors of Florida, and I've
had to deal with that a little bit, and I know about that and it is a full
disclosure to every property owner including with certified mail, not
only that the assessments are coming, but that if you want them
collected, if you agree with the district that they should be collected
and enforced on Guy Carlton's tax notice, then you will not, even if
you fail to pay, lose your property for a minimum of two years. And
that's what this district wants. We put it into the law. It's optional to
the County, but all of the 190 districts here in your county use Mr.
Carlton's approach there. And then there is the trim notice, which
really deals with property taxes, but it goes out every July or August
and -- by the property appraiser, and it does have a section about the
assessments.
Now, let's talk about those things for a minute. You've heard
me mention tax, and you've heard me mention a prop -- an
assessment, and the real world, again, if I have to go to my bank
Page 159
October 28, 2003
account, or pull out my wallet if it's compulsory that I pay, I don't
really care that it's called a tax or an assessment or a fee or a license,
it's a tax. But, the legal distinction between a property tax and a
special assessment is so pro-consumer that it's not even funny, and
we've applied it in the following way; just like we do in your 190
districts. What is an ad valorem tax? Well, it's compulsory is the
most important thing to know. And no one can ever challenge
whether it's this county, that district, any city, you can never
challenge whether the property tax is a property tax and is a first lien.
You're out of the ball game for that, any citizen is. That's just the
way it is. What you challenge with ad valorem taxes is the rate, or
whether the property should be exempt. But there's never any issue
about whether that ought to be a lien. But with assessments that is
the issue, and it's sort of like a sword, heavy, heavy hangs over both
the board and the property owner forever. Why, because for the
assessment to be a first lien, because it's not automatic and we wrote
a detailed procedure here, about five pages of procedure based on
about 20 years of experience that's in this act, this board, this district
board, has to make two determinations, does this road system, does
this solid waste collection system, does this park in conjunction with
Ave Maria University result in a special benefit peculiar to the man's
property or the woman's property. That's test one. And there are all
kinds of details about how you determine what that is. The second
one is, is the duty to pay fair and reasonable. Now, you don't have a
special peculiar benefit and fair and reasonable apportionment for
property taxes.
So we just went on and put in here that this district can do
property taxes, but only under the following circumstances; to a
maximum of three mills, not 10 mills, a maximum of three mills, and
only if-- only if all five board members are qualified electors, and
only if each of those five board members is elected by qualified
electors, and only if there is a referendum, and then if there's going to
Page 160
October 28, 2003
be an issuance of a general obligation bond, it can only be after a
referendum, this is a different referendum, and only up to -- have
only up to an amount of 35 percent of the assessed value subject to
the bonded debt.
Now, that provision, we put in here verbatim from 190 to give
you that comfort level, because I've never represented a 190 district
that has ever used the ad valorem tax power.
So it's there, but it has the severe limitations, and that is why the
primary engine here is the special assessment. And it has to have
those tests. And all of that is set forth in great detail in section 4,
subsection 14, and subsections 12 in great detail.
And then -- just about three or four more points, just based on
the questions I've heard today. The purpose of this district, as I said,
is to provide infrastructure, and one of the purposes of your overlay
and encouraging fiscal neutrality is to prevent urban sprawl. So
that's one of the benefits -- sorry, Mr. Chairman -- that's one -- sorry,
taking too long. The developers have no control over that. And then
the district itself because it is a local government has no impact. It
can't have impact. It can't make a qualitative decision about the
environment. That's your decision, in conjunction with whatever you
do in zoning and permitting and development orders. Whatever is
required of the developer is required of the district, but what this
district does, because the decisions are made in the sunshine, is in
effect constitute a spyglass or a microscope. We've discussed this
with many of your excellent environmental leaders in this
community and with you. If you don't have a district, you don't see
whether the conditions of development or approval are going to be
violated until the dirt turns. With the district you know necessarily
and in advance. And, in fact, that's how you get into the concurrency
management system, because the law requires -- it's in here also, that
this district file an annual report that your county may use and rely
on for concurrency management satisfaction. And that means you
Page 161
October 28, 2003
know well in advance through the spyglass concept of this district
about whether there is any decision that would be adverse to any
legitimate interest, but the chance for that is nil, because it's only
going to implement the environmental decisions you make in your
development order and in your plan.
So I've tried just hurriedly to cite to you where we've put the --
actually, you can see in the act where we've put these provisions. I'd
be glad to respond to any questions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioners.9
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In our backup information here
that says that this is draft number 15, is this the final draft, or where
are we at in the --
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: Well, we had what was -- I thought
was the next to final one until we put in the provision for the
Chairman on requiring coordination with you, as a board, about any
grants, there will be -- but now that that's in there it is next to final,
with one exception, when the dust clears and if we know what your
vote is, I plan to go back and do the typical tedious lawyer thing as
though I were a bill drafter. There is -- in the bows of your state
capital are some very brilliant people who work for both houses, who
do bill drafting and they make sure, and I've tried to emulate them,
but they make sure that every comma is where it should be, and
every semi colon and all the numbering system, and I'm going to try
to read as though I were one of them, and I'm actually going to have
a good friend of mine review it as well. So subject to that, and
subject to any communication we get from you today, it's final.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Commissioners, we
have two speakers. Would you like to hear them before we continue
with any questions? Okay, fine.
MS. FILSON: Father Joseph Fessio. He'll be followed by Tom
Page 162
October 28, 2003
Sansbury.
FATHER FESSIO: Thank you. I will not give a sermon here.
Mr. Van Assenderp has explained to you-all the benefits to the
County of having this special district. I just want to say, briefly,
what the benefit I perceive for Ave Maria University in the district is.
Before I do that, I want to take this opportunity to go on the record
and say what I've said publicly and privately having been here now
for one year, the university community has been extremely grateful
at the reception we've received from -- at every level from all sorts of
people and organizations, but in particular, since we have been
planning and preparing the interim campus, the cooperation we've
received from the County has been extraordinary, and that's been
something that we are very appreciative of. My understanding, from
Mr. Van Assenderp is that under this special district, we're going to
have to follow the same zoning laws and same permitting
requirements and regulations that we would have without a district,
and that's fine with me. We're not trying to evade those things. We
want to comply with whatever is going to be applicable to us. But,
my understanding also is that in terms of our preparing the
infrastructure for this university and it's surrounding community, it is
more efficient for us, it's a better mechanism for us to work with the
County and the State, if we had the special district, and that to me is
extremely important for this reason, if this were just a commercial
enterprise or residential development it wouldn't matter whether we
got ready by Fall of 2006. But this is a university. If we're not ready
by Fall 2006, if we're ready two weeks late, or a month late, we've
lost a year. And we can't afford to lose a year and I'll tell you why.
We were licensed by the State of Florida late January this year. We
began recruiting in February, that's very late for recruiting for a
university. We had a 100 -- we had 400 inquiries and 100 students,
and I've got to say on August 20th when they showed up, that was
the last piece of the puzzle. We were extremely happy. We have a
Page 163
October 28, 2003
tremendous group of students. Thirty-three states represented. If you
have a chance to come and visit us out by the Vineyards there, in the
Vineyards, please do so. It's really going beautifully. However, we
already have over 1,200 inquiries for next year. We think that we'll
just have enough room in Fall 2004 for the students we're going to
have at that time. For Fall 2005, I just got back from Rome last
week, we're actually looking at renting hotels in Rome, to have a
Rome program to take what we think will be the overflow in 2005.
We also want to have a Rome program anyway. But we wanted to
do everything we can to make sure that we can inhabit this campus in
the Fall of 2006, and I'm told that from our point of view the most
efficient, effective way is to have -- for the implementation of the
infrastructure and its maintenance, to have this special district. So
that's our concern. One final note, there's been one objection, and I
haven't heard from the others here, but it's come up, concern by the
people of Immokalee that this district is going to mean that we're
going to shut ourselves off, and close a wall around us, and prevent
interaction with that group. Again, I want to go on record as saying
that we could've bought property closer to Naples. We choose
Immokalee, not only because the Barron Collier Companies offered
this property for free, but because we wanted to be near Immokalee.
We think this is a call of us to be a bridge between this beautiful
culturally elite Naples community, and the next generation of leaders
in Florida and in this country. So, I want to dispel publicly any
suspicion that we have an intention of separating ourselves from the
people of Immokalee.
And, then, finally, I did find another reason for this special
district, which perhaps trumps them all. I've been so impressed by
the civic responsibility you show up here as public officials. If we
have a special district, that's probably my only chance of becoming a
public official.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: God help you.
Page 164
October 28, 2003
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Tom Sansbury.
MR. SANSBURY: Tom Sansbury, Barron Collier Companies.
Again, I'd like to thank you for hearing us today. I do not believe
there is anything I can add to the presentation of Father Fessio and
Mr. Van Assenderp, and we request your help and approval of our
request for resolution.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Comaaissioner Coyle, Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion on the floor.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I had some questions, first.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll second it for discussion's sake.
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I wanted to just clarify it
about the donation of roads -- for roads here for Oil Well, Camp
Keais, Immokalee, wherever we decide to go, that's all set, that's a
pure donation.
MR. LITSINGER: Yes, Commissioner, in their last moment
delivery to you of yesterday, we have the letter of understanding
between the Barron Collier Companies to the County Manager, Jim
Mudd, relative to very specific donations of right-of-way, also
relative to the advancement of impact fees, no impact fee credits, and
it will enable us to bring that project forward into our planning cycle
much earlier than we would've realized previous to this, but we
would recommend the resolution to you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And also a commitment to go
to any public meetings that you're invited to to explain the process.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
Oh, I'm sorry, is there anything else?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, maybe I'm done -- but
would you make that commitment, sir?
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: Yes, sir, commissioner, absolutely.
Page 165
October 28, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that would be November
14th for my Civic Advisory Group. There may be one before that
also.
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: It may be Mr. Sansbury, but we'll be
there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sorry, is there anything?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, there's plenty, but that's
enough.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. The reason I'm going
to ask this question is I'm trying to get an overall picture of exactly
what we're looking at here in the future. We're looking at 10,000
acres that's going to be a special district for Ave Maria, can you give
us, the Commissioners, some idea of the impact that is going to be
brought on by this special district and I mean the impact by what is
your projected buildout, as far as population, so some way or another
I can kind of put this in perspective of how this is going to lay on the
whole land, everything out there in the eastern estates.
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: Commissioner, thank you very
much. It'll be a two-part answer. I'll do the first part and Mr.
Sansbury the second part. And I don't mean to be cute, because I
share with what the good father said about the consciousness of all of
your questions, but just to convey the legal point first, and then get to
the information you wanted. There is no impact to the district. The
District's there to help provide infrastructure subject to how you
measure and determine the impacts. So you're in control of the
impacts. And subject to that, he can explain a little bit about the
projected buildout of this other subject called the Ave Maria
Development.
MR. SANSBURY: Thank you. The numbers I'm going to
address are approximate numbers because we're in the DR-- we're in
Page 166
October 28, 2003
the PDA process and will soon be in the DRI in which these numbers
will be finalized. But of the 10,000 acres that were in the district,
approximately 3,000 of those acres are either designated as sending
areas at the present time, or potential and future sending areas. That
leaves us with 7,000 acres. Of those 7,000 acres, approximately
4,500 of those acres make up the town, community, and the
university. The additional 2,500 acres is a buffer around the outside.
It is inactive agricultural use at the present time. Within the 4,500
acres of the town and the community, 900 of those acres are in the
university and about 3,600 of those acres are in the town. Again,
approximate acreage. On those 3,600 at buildout in approximately
2025 there will be approximately 10,000 'units. 10,000 units with a
projection of two and a half people per unit, meaning that in 2025 an
approximate population would be 25,000 people.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR. SANSBURY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I had a couple of questions,
same as I had for the last one, and that is what -- what are your land
management standards? Do you have land management standards in
place already, and if so, who, what third party will be monitoring
them?
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: The district as a matter of law cannot
have land management standards. That's your job, and you-all have
done a great job with the rural lands overlays and the rules. You're
also negotiating the redevelopment agreement. You're also going to,
at some point, reach a decision on the conditions of development
approval for the development of regional impact with the developer,
landowner, and then it is that total amount that will apply to this
district forever, subject to however you may want to change them
and in your successors as the years go by. As far as a third party is
concerned, that's a twofold answer. The conditions of the
Page 167
October 28, 2003
development approval, zoning and all of those things that apply to
the developer, would also apply to anything that the district would
undertake. So you got both the district and the developer covered.
And then I refer to my comments about the spyglass, because the
District's a local government, because the meetings are in the
sunshine, because they're noticed, and because they're subject to
agendas, you and your excellent staff can find out early on the
answer to that very important question you raise.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I must not have
understood you right. I thought I heard you say that -- that this
development -- this district does not tell you what land management
standards must be in place. We tell you. So, in other words, we go
in and tell you and your new district what land management
standards must be there, and then we monitor; is that -- is that the
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: That's correct. And you have a
government -- you can monitor before any dirt's mined. If you don't
have the district, you could only see what happened after the dirt was
mined. So that's a benefit to your monitoring and to your review.
And we don't take away any of your regulatory and enforcement
power.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That's good. The second
question, then, as long as -- as long as our staff is in agreement with
that, then that's fine. Oh, did you have something to say, Stan?
MR. LITSINGER: Yeah. Excuse me. I know Ken, he doesn't
ever seem to want to talk about the development side. But within the
district, of course, we already have active in their system three
stewardship sending areas that are currently within the district in the
first phase of what will be the Ave Maria DRI, which will generate
the credits, and establish the management plans for the areas that are
being set up relative to the stewardship preservation program and
also relative to the development standards that you folks will approve
Page 168
October 28, 2003
in February on your resolution to create the Ave Maria SRA
officially with all of the development standings and stipulations
relative to this first phase of what will eventually be a 3,000 acre
DRI, within the 10,000 acre district.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You see it's a little hard for me to
grasp that we're -- that they have, more or less, put together their own
little form of government with their own board of directors and so
forth, and we're going to come in and tell them how to manage their
land, but that's what you're saying we're going to be doing.
MR. LITSINGER: In all areas of land development, they have
no--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And land management --
MR. LITSINGER-- no police or regulatory powers, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second question --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, let me ask -- let me ask a
question. You said land management.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. MUDD: When you -- whatever they do in there, as far as
zoning and want to build and things like that, all of those things come
before this board of county commissioners. Okay. You have DRI
that will come to you that will talk about that. You'll see the plans
and that business that's here and they will have to abide by our land
development code.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And we'll --
MR. MUDD: So, if that's what you're saying --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So we'll be putting the standards
together that they will follow?
MR. MUDD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Lastly, language needs to be
-- I want the same thing. I need to read this again, language needs to
be included in this proposed legislation that will allow the governor
to have the power to remove or repeal individuals from this board.
Page 169
October 28, 2003
The governor has the ability to repeal and appoint members to the
Collier County board of Commissioners, and I personally would like
to see that the governor has the same ability to do that with this
board.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Except for Father Fessio.
MR. MUDD: The Pope does.
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: Mr. Manager Mudd said that the
Pope -- Pope does, yeah. This may be the highest elevated witness
I've ever been privileged to have in any proceeding I've every
appeared before as -- as an attorney. I echo the answers that Mr.
Lewis gave you, Commissioner, for that important question. These
are public officials, just as much as you are, and not one iota less and
they're subject to all of the same requirements. I will find that
statutory reference, as well. Dadgummit, I missed one and didn't get
to put it in the special act, but we'll -- we'll have that ready for you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Very good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hi. In this -- this district they're able
to collect and dispose of garbage. Do they have to abide by our
ordinances such as recycling and so on or so forth? MR. LITSINGER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner
Coyle and then Ms. Ashton.
MS. ASHTON: For the record, Heidi Ashton, Assistant County
Attorney. And I just have --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And then Commissioner Coyle.
MS. ASHTON: Oh, I'm sorry, did I --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, you didn't.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm still deciding whether or not I
want to speak. So go ahead.
MS. ASHTON: I just have one comment, which is -- I'd like to
make as part of the record the letter dated October 24th, 2003 from
Mr. Paul Marinelli, president of Barron Collier Companies to Mr.
Page 170
October 28, 2003
Mudd, and I'll give a copy to the Clerk.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I just -- I just want to
summarize a little bit on these standards. I think the point we're
missing here is that we've already developed the standards. The
standards for managing this property were developed and approved
by us when we approved this stewardship area, right?
MR. MUDD: The growth management plan you have before
you. The land development codes you're still working on.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. We're working on
that, and that will be done very quickly. So everything associated
with the management of this particular property is going to be done
by us before this thing ever is approved by the legislative, and before
you ever really constitutes any board whatsoever. So all of the
management concepts and standards, with respect to these
stewardship areas, in fact, to all of this area, will have been done by
us long before you get to the point of doing anything at all.
MR. LITSINGER: Yes, Commissioner Coyle, in fact, we call it
the wheelbarrow cycle of the land development code amendments.
You will be having -- it'll be working to you for -- I believe your
hearings are in December with adoption on January the 7th of the
design standards for all of your rural land forms of development,
towns, univer-- well, in this case, universities, and rural-type
development and all of the design standards and principles that we
want to apply in approving the SRA, which will come to you for
approval in February.
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: Just one other thing, Commissioner
Coyle, just to make the record and the answer complete, if by some
reason there's a delay, and the district is created by the legislature
and effective and the governor signs it, then there's no road pursuant
to any standard by which the district could put the road in.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can't do anything.
Page 171
October 28, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Henning, any further discussion?
All in favor of the motion signify by saying, aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING Any opposed?
Motion carries four (sic) zero.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that includes the language I
read into the record.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
Item # 1 1
PIIBI.IC COMMENTS ON GENERAl. TOPICS
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. We had two short items -- are
you okay, do you need --
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm going to be relieved at four.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. You're going to be relieved at
four. So maybe we can get this all done.
MR. MUDD: Next item, Commissioner, is number-- excuse
me, public comment.
Do we have any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good afternoon, once again,
Commissioners. How are you doing. There's been one issue that's
been of interest to me for quite a while now, and it's -- it's off the
normal topic -- of my normal topic. And it is the -- the process -- the
way commissioners treat citizens, and the way the citizens address
Page 172
October 28, 2003
commissioners. Now, I'm most comfortable when I'm here, although
I know most of the commissioners on a first-name basis when we're
outside of this room and call most of them by their first name. But
when I'm here I'd like to refer to you as commissioner so and so, or
commissioner so -- and the same with the County Manager, I call
him Jim out in the hall or something like that, and he calls me Bob,
but here I like to refer to him as county manager, and I would like to
think that the commissioners could treat the citizens the same way.
Sometimes it's fun and pleasant and comfortable when you're doing
positive things to relate to people you know on the outside as Tom,
or there was other gentleman who's a development lawyer that people
usually address as -- on a first-name basis, and that's nice, but
sometimes when it's a controversial development it makes -- it makes
it look like you or your staff are too chummy with the developer, you
know, and sometimes like if there's a matter of contention and you're
referring to me as Bob or someone else in the common, casual sense,
it seems condescending.
So, I think it would be appropriate in this venue for all of us to
treat each other at a higher level, whether it's contentious or super
friendly.
Okay. So, I'll just leave it at that, okay, and I'll see you around.
Item #12A
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS APPROVE SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS
AGAINST INDIVIDUAL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND
FORMER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN THE CASE OF
AQUAPORT V. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO. 2:01-CV-341-FTM-
29DNF, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, NOW PENDING IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH
Page 173
October 28, 2003
CIRCIIIT AS CASE NO. 03-13133-1:11:1- APPROVED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you. Next item is
12-A, recommendation that the board of County Commissioners
approve settlement of claims against individual county
commissioners and former county commissioners in the case of
Aquaport versus Collier County.
MR. PETTIT: Good afternoon, Commissioners, for the record,
Chief Assistant Attorney Mike Pettit. You've stated the
recommendation to approve the settlement. I want to give you a little
background. Under Florida common law an our own resolution, as I
think you-all know, the County has an obligation to pay the legal
expenses of county employees, including county commissioners, who
are sued for acts arising out of the performance of their official
duties, that further a public purpose. And as you may recall some of
you were on the board and are -- and remain defendants in the
lawsuit, some not. This was a vote on a land development matter, the
Aquaport case. You were sitting as commissioners performing your
official duties and acting in furtherance of public purpose and
certainly their expenses have been advanced for those five
commissioners that were sued, two who are no longer with us.
That's the background. And I guess the reason I tell you that is
that regardless, we have to pay those fees. The issue here that's
before you is that the plaintiffs have determined that they're prepared
to resolve this suit if we, in the court of appeals, drop our claim for
recovery of approximately $93,100 in attorneys' fees that have been
expended to date. Let me tell you about those fees. Those fees with
the outside counsel that the board approved several years ago to
represent the five individual commissioners who were named
individually in the suit, those fees have, by and large, I believe been
paid for by excess carrier insurance funds; however, should we
prevail on that claim to recover those fees, those dollars would
Page 174
October 28, 2003
actually come back into the County coffer first. If you want to put it
this way, we have first dibs, as it were, as I understand it from
reading our insurance contracts, and from our claims adjustor on the
first $100,000 that's at issue there.
So it is a significant claim that we give up, but I want to put it in
perspective. What we get in return is those five individual
commissioners, obviously, no longer will have exposure to liability.
We believe the liability here is very remote, but the fact is, the
liability case remains on appeal, and the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals could decide the trial judge was in error, I suppose.
If those five individual commissioners were ever found to be
liable, I believe the common law in our own resolution would
suggest that any judgment against those commissioners, unless there
are facts that would come forward that we don't know about today,
would still have to be paid from either excess insurance proceeds, or
County funds. So there would be some benefit both for our insurance
carrier and to the County to resolve the suit for that reason.
I think it would simplify the litigation. The case remains
pending against the County.
The final thing is that I need to tell you is the claims for
prevailing defendants in civil rights cases are generally not favored in
law. Now, we prevailed. We made our claim for attorneys' fees at
the trial court level, and the trial court judge said, yes, you won, but
I'm not going to award you your attorneys' fees. So that's the appeal
we had.
So those are background facts that I want to make sure you
understand before you vote on the recommendation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: One question, your final comment,
what's the chances that we would be awarded attorneys' fees under
this proposed settlement, 93,000?
MR. PETTIT: Well, if we-- if we reject-- if the board today
rejects the settlement, both our claim for attorneys' fees has been
Page 175
October 28, 2003
appealed, because we lost at the' trial court, the liability claim has
been appealed by the plaintiffs, because they lost in the trial court.
To assess our chances, I can only say that the law is pretty clear, that
if you're a defendant in a civil rights case and you win the case,
which you-- which the five individual commissioners have done at
this point, you're what's called a prevailing party, however, you
would have to demonstrate that the claim that was brought against
you was frivolous, and the bottom line is the trial court determined
that it wasn't frivolous. It determined that the five individual
commissioners should be found not liable, ruled in the
commissioners' favor, but did not determine that the case was
frivolous.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And previous to those
comments, I was ready to be more inclined not to settle, because it
was our understanding that we were acting as board of
commissioners, and not individually. But since we lost the first
round, I'm more inclined to vote for the recommendation of our staff.
Commission Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'm sad to say that I'm not
one of the commissioners being sued here, but I wish I were. I wasn't
here at the time, and I make this statement because it's an important
statement to be made. The commissioners that are being sued are
being sued because they reversed a decision given to a developer to
build density that was more than this commission thought should be
built, and those commissioners had the courage to reverse that
approval, remove the approval and reduce the density that was
required to be built, and I say that because I want those people who
are always so quick to say that the commissioners always grant the
developers what they want, and, in fact, they have not, and three of
them, who are sitting here today, have been sued personally for
making that decision, and I just want that recognized
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion.
Page 176
October 28, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Halas. Any further discussion? Seeing
none, all in favor signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING Any opposed?
Motion carries unanimously.
MR. PETTIT: Thank you.
Item #14A
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COUNTY'S AIRPORT
AUTHORITY THAT THE BOARD AFFIRM THE ATTACHED
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AUTHORITY
AND EUGENE SCHMIDT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AND
AUTHORIZE A RELATED BUDGET AMENDMENT-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is number 14-A, and
that's a recommendation from the County's Airport Authority for the
board to affirm the attached employment agreement between the
Authority and Eugene Schmidt, Executive Director and authorize a
related budget amendment, and to present is Mr. Dennis Vasey, who
is the Chair of your Airport Authority.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Vasey, before you start, I just
want to explain to the Commissioners and yourself that I ask this off
Page 177
October 28, 2003
the consent agenda. And the reason is I'm going to vote against
giving anybody a 40 percent raise and, you know, Mr. Schmidt is a
nice guy, likable guy, and I always enjoy sitting down with him in
the office, but just on a principal, I'm not going to give anybody a 40
percent raise, and reading the Airport Authority's employee
agreement, you know, we didn't have the privilege of hiring the
Airport Director, Mr. Schmidt, the Airport Authority did. So, I'm not
sure if it's -- if it's our charge to give a 40 percent raise to an Airport
Authority Director. That's all.
MR. VASEY: Dennis P. Vasey, for the record. And I am the
Chairman of the Collier County Airport Authority. Sometimes shell
games are played in different ways, and if I could just use
Commissioner Coyle's analogy that he used in the lawsuit and how
willing he would've been to be sued for doing the right thing. I think
after I kind of tell you what's happened, you will be on my side.
Forty percent of what, the concession was with Mr. -- was with Mr.
Dewry (phonetic) that the Airport Authority hired, and it is in the
ordinance and that is our responsibility, was for $112,000, plus 21
percent in hidden benefits. That takes me to about 130,000 for John
Dewry two years ago. And then when we brought on Mr. Twetty
(phonetic) as the Interim Director, he was hired in at 75, now add 25
percent to that and you're at $90,000 for an Airport Director, and I
simply get to that because of the Department of Labor Standards
which lists 71.2 for salary wages and the rest is in mandatory fees.
So here we have the compensation issue. This is a one of a kind
only executive agreement or employment agreement simply because
Mr. Schmidt is retired. He has his own medical. He's not vesting for
retirement. He's not doing anything, he's a salary-only employee.
But the more important charge is the one that you gave us in the
ordinance and that was to effectively manage and operate your
airport system. To follow that charge in the ordinance, we, in fact,
brought on Mr. Schmidt simply because we needed leadership. And
Page 178
October 28, 2003
to this date, Mr. Schmitt's brought us the strategic business plan.
He's brought us an airport that is functioning. We don't have any
quote or per se employee problems. We're operating as a public
facility.
Now, I don't know what the compensation should be for any
job, but I do know that in this case and because of Mr. Schmitt's
specific circumstance, and with Mr. Schmitt's consent, we have
written for you an employment agreement that gives you the absolute
control over dismissal of Mr. Schmidt for any reason with his full
participation, which means that he's not going to get anything.in exit.
He is only asking for $85,000 in annual compensation, which I
might tell you is a great bargain for the work that he's being asked to
do.
Now, the reason this employment agreement is structured the
way it is is simply, again, because of Mr. Schmidt. I couldn't create
the same agreement for any of you or for me, because this is a
negotiative process and you have to negotiate with the employee, and
it's not like we have a lot of people lined up at the door to run this
operation, but we do have a public responsibility to do it.
The Airport Authority, and this a first, has never come to ask for
ratification of any action except a request for bonding or for its
budget approval, and in the ordinance those are two responsibilities
that you have retained. But with regard to the employment of an
executive director in the ordinance or the law that we follow, it is
Airport Authority's express responsibility to make that choice.
So as a rather historic gesture taking into consideration
comments that you have made over the past year and during my two
years as a board member, I felt that with Mr. Mudd's agreement that
it was very important that we come back to you and let you know
exactly where we were going and what we were doing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I would just like to make a
Page 179
October 28, 2003
comment along that line and I think we've had more communication
with the Airport Authority since Mr. Schmidt took over, than we
have had in years. So I feel he's -- he's really fostered good
communication between the two and I really appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'd also like to mention
that he's working very hard on the Immokalee Park Project that we
all mentioned to him before. And I think he's in there for the interim.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Vasey, could you summarize
the salary levels again. Do I understand that what this represents
really is a reduction of overall personnel costs from where we were
before?
MR. VASEY: Well, if you look at the budget, what you see is
75,000 was budgeted, but outside of that, a 23 percent in benefits that
are mandated, so inside of that budget in the uncontrolled expense
column, we're about 20 to 25 percent more to pay for someone that
wanted to be vested, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So you've actually -- again,
I'll try to rephrase this, but you've actually reduced the personnel cost
to the Airport Authority by negotiating this agreement with Mr.
Schmidt?
MR. VASEY: We -- we-- yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So I guess bottom line is
we've gotten probably the most experienced airport manager we've
ever had at less money. I'm not trying to talk him into asking for a
raise at this point in time, but is that a fair statement? Am I
interpreting it correctly?
MR. VASEY: I tried to couch it more generally, sir, but my
comments were that it would be very difficult to buy this type of
experience for the dollars that we're offering, and under the -- under
the agreement that we've structured.
Page 180
October 28, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would like to also say that I
champion Mr. Schmidt. I think that this gentleman, coming out of
retirement, and he has really worked diligently with the Airport
Commission, has worked, I think, with a lot of the commissioners
here, in regards to exactly to what's going on, and I feel it's a big
benefit. One thing I'd like to do is, if we could, is on page 5, under
3.3.1, that we insert that subsequently ratified by the board of County
Commissioners and no later than September 30th, 2005, or upon
selection of a permanent executive director, and in there I think we
ought to insert, possibly, upon selection or dissolution of the Airport
Authority as we know it today.
MR. VASEY: We did anticipate that, and in discussion with
Mr. Palmer, the reason for the second part of this agreement and that
was to give notice to Mr. Schmidt, was to insure that he participated
actively in every aspect, either of your decisions or in decisions of
the Airport Authority.
So to answer your question, specifically, if your decision
tomorrow or today was to dissolve the Airport Authority, Mr.
Schmidt would be noticed of that, and under this agreement, as soon
as that decision took place, and at your direction, he would be
removed.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we approve
this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
second by Commissioner Fiala.
saying, aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
Second.
Motion by Commissioner Halas,
All in favor of the motion signify by
Aye.
Aye.
Page 181
October 28, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
Motion carries four, one.
MR. VASEY: Thank you.
Aye
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAIJ COMMI INICATIONS
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now we're at comments. We're just
about done here.
Mr. Weigel, do you have any comments?
MR. WEIGEL: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Yes, thank you. First, I'd like to bring Mr.
Dunnuck to come back up and to kind of summarize a little bit of
what was talked about in the shade, and the board asked him to -- the
board members asked for him to make the statement during
communication. Mr. Dunnuck.
MR. DUNNUCK: Commissioners, for the record my name is
John Dunnuck, Public Services Administrator. I wanted to just get
on the public record the current status of where we are with the EMS
negotiations. At the present time the EMS Union has presented a
package to us that was about a three to five million dollar increase.
Three million on the salary side, about another two million dollars on
the benefit side, as determined by our Human Resources Department.
We presented a package from our side that was consistent with other
county employment. It offered a 3.8 to 5.8 percent increase, and it
also said that we'd do market adjustments on an annual and do a
career progression program to help people move through the range,
as long as they were looking at educational opportunities and so
Page 182
October 28, 2003
forth. It wasn't just we will continue to move you through the range,
but that, in fact, you had to get more training, more education, to be
able to do that. We thought that was a very fair system.
Unfortunately, we haven't been able to reach that compromise. And
at this point in time we have declared an impasse. We have one more
meeting scheduled tomorrow to try to resolve a couple of the 21
articles that aren't -- that aren't dealing with benefits and the
management rights. But from here on out we anticipate that we are
going to end up in the process where we're going to be going to an
arbitrator to make a nonbinding recommendation, both sides will
present their side of the story on how we came to our calculations,
and then we will end up going back to the board of County
Commissioners for a final decision based upon the arbitrator's
recommendation and a staff recommendation.
From my standpoint, I feel very comfortable from what we have
presented as the County staff, and we anticipate that this will be a
three to six month process, but I just wanted to make sure that the
public was aware of it, of where we are situationally at this point in
time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Where -- where would you get
this 3.2 million dollars to 3.5 million dollars?
MR. DUNNUCK: Well, that represents, depending on how far
the benefits package go, that's roughly a 50 percent increase to the
general fund of what we contribute to EMS. We contribute about
eight and a half million dollars right now, which is, you know,
roughly a 60/40 split. Another four to five million dollars would be
anywhere from 37 percent to about 60 percent of the general fund
money that we would need to have to pay for that increase.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Didn't -- didn't you propose to the
union to bring them up, as far as benefits are concerned, on par with
all the other county employees?
Page 183
October 28, 2003
MR. DUNNUCK: Commissioners, we've done a couple of
significant things. You gave them two payroll increases last spring.
One was to adjust a 2.9 percent that went back two years from an
issue that the union previously had. We also did a market study in
the spring, and brought up where we felt we were behind the market,
we brought them up to the market rate, and as soon as we did that,
within a three-month period of time, we went from having
approximately 20-some vacancies to zero. So from our standpoint we
feel very competitive. Are we going to lose a few people here and
there, sure we are because from some standpoints with independent
fire districts they're offering 100 percent benefit packages out there.
We don't anticipate to, you know, to compete with those. But at the
same time, if we have an aggressive training program and we can get
people in the door and train them the way our EMS system, which is,
in my opinion, superior to most others, if we train them the way we
need to train them, we're going to be in good shape.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you know, I think we've got
a wonderful EMS Department. We have an excellent record, and I
think your reputation speaks for itself, but I don't know how you
bridge that kind of gap. That's a huge demand by the union and --
and this lingering inability to reach some conclusion is expensive all
in itself. Taxpayers are paying for all of this. And I would hope that
we could -- we could reach some agreement that is -- is reasonable,
pretty quickly, otherwise in the interest of the taxpayers of Collier
County, I think we have to look at some alternatives here. I mean,
these kinds of disagreements are just -- are just too big for us to be
able to bridge, and we certainly can't be faced with those kind of
things year after year after year, and the provision of emergency
medical services to our taxpayers is very, very important, and I think
we got to maintain the quality that we think is appropriate, but we
have to do it at a reasonable price.
MR. DUNNUCK: Well, absolutely, and that's part of the
Page 184
October 28, 2003
concern, you know, in the third year in what they're proposing we
would have paramedics making director-level salaries. And we have
to look at it from a holistic standpoint at how we compare that with
other county employees, and I think that would create kind of an
upside down approach in our system. And they're also talking about
no maximum limits on their side, as well. So, they're taking sky's the
limit as far as what the paramedics can end up making, and while we
value those paramedics, we know that there is a maximum cap with
the market--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we work out a deal similar to
that for the County Commissioners?
MR. DUNNUCK: I'm right there with you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let me paraphrase this. You're
saying that the normal salary increases that we gave to the employees
of the County was about five percent. MR. MUDD: 4.55 percent.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's including a merit raise,
depending on how their performance worked out. MR. MUDD: That's what we budgeted.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And you're telling me that these
people are looking for a 28 percent increase in wages over the next
three years?
MR. DUNNUCK: They're actually looking at about a 36
percent increase over three years.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thirty-six percent.
MR. DUNNUCK: Twenty percent the first year, eight percent
second, eight percent third.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm sorry, I interrupted you. What
-- you said 28 percent, was it?
MR. DUNNUCK: It's about a 36 percent in total for three
years. It's 20 percent the first, eight percent the second, eight percent
Page 185
October 28, 2003
'the third year, and that doesn't even include the benefits package and
additional incentives.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I hope that their representation
takes a serious look at what they're demanding here from the
taxpayers. I think that they need to get more realistic in the real
world here when we look at what we demand of the other people that
work for the County here, and I think that they have to address the
fact that they need to look seriously at themselves in regards to what
they're requesting here for the people who pay their wages. And I
agree with Commissioner Coyle, we have an outstanding EMS
Department, but I think that we can keep those standards high
without having to go way out on the limb to pay these kind of excess
in salaries.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Perhaps a message to them to take
a long walk off a short pier would be appropriate.
MR. DUNNUCK: Well, certainly we have tried to convince
them that from a factual standpoint, we feel like we're in pretty good
shape, but, you know, we're at where we're at. And then certainly we
will take back these comments of the Commission this afternoon.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think the other thing that they
have to realize, the union representatives have to realize that this is
run like a corporation, and so we're going to be -- we're going to look
at this very cost effectively. We may look at some other alternative
ideas or plans or whatever else. This is something that -- so I would
think that with that message that they would get down to a realistic
idea, in regards to wage increases. And I think we can, hopefully,
work something out. If not, we will look at cost effective measures.
MR. DUNNUCK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Anything else?
MR. MUDD: Yes, I'd like to read two letters and I gave them to
the Clerk's representatives so she doesn't have to try to do this
Page 186
October 28, 2003
verbatim. Okay.
First is a letter to you, Mr. Chairman, from the Collier County
Clerk of Courts. And it says, Dear Commissioner Henning:
Pursuant to Section 218.36, Florida Statutes, I hereby submit to you
$12,331,269 as the unexpended balance of the Clerk of the Circuit
Court's general fund for FY 2002--2003. The following unexpended
portion is the culmination of the efforts of the Clerk's staff at
efficiently dispensing the duties of the Clerk of the Circuit Court for
the aforementioned fiscal year.
On the morning of October 29, 2003 $2,535,396 will be
conveyed by wire transfer into the operating account of the Collier
County board of County Commissioners. It is important to note that
this does not include the $9,795,873 of interest the income, which
was previously disbursed to the Board's General Fund.
Each of the individuals working on the Clerk's staff has
endeavored to minimize the impact of this office on the taxpayers of
Collier County while providing them with the highest quality service
possible. I wish to thank each of these individuals who have worked
so hard in making the Clerk's office efficient and effective.
If you should have any questions or need additional information,
please feel free to contact me or Jim Mitchell, the Director of
Finance and Accounting.
Respectfully signed, Dwight E. Brock, Clerk of the Circuit
Courts.
The next letter I'd like to read --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Jim.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Just can't cut those checks fast enough, huh, Jim.
The next letter I'd like to read is from the Collier County
Property Appraiser.
Dear Commissioners, as you know, it is customary that unspent
Page 187
October 28, 2003
budget funds are returned to the County after the fiscal year ends.
This past year, due to staff innovation and untiring efforts, the
Property Appraiser's OfFice is able to significantly increase the
amount returned.
The office requested funds to purchase a new state of the art
appraisal system last year, and after reviewing several presentations,
decided that staff could develop one that was better, more suited to
our needs and much more cost effective. I cannot tell you how
fortunate our county taxpayers and this office is to have this amount
of expertise in-house.
In addition, due to the office's most useful and popular
Geographic Information System (GIS) and the public's demand for
maps and other statistical information, significant fee collection is
being realized.
The Property Appraiser's Office is fully aware that we are here
to serve and to guard the public's trust and funding by returning a
total amount of $1,337,053.74 from the '03 fiscal year budget. In
keeping with that philosophy, the Property Appraiser's budget
adopted for fiscal year '04 has been reduced by 4.75 percent.
I appreciate the opportunity to bring this information to your
attention.
Sincerely signed, Abe Skinner, Collier County Property
Appraiser.
And both great news this morning, along with Guy's this
morning, as far as the return. That's absolutely super. I take my hats
off to those constitutional officers and the dedication of their staff.
The other item I'd like to talk to the board about is an item that
came up yesterday, and it's been-- it's being bantered about, and it
has to do with the suit by the Friends of Gummy to try to get an
investigator to investigate our Domestic Animal Services
Department. As you know an investigation was done by our Human
Resources Department with a -- with a report that was about that
Page 188
October 28, 2003
think. (Indicating.) And yesterday's news article was a little
disturbing, and the reason I say it was a little disturbing is because
the individual that was mentioned during the article yesterday in the
paper had made a call to Mr. Dunnuck some two and a half months
ago, and basically said I read the report, and why didn't you fire the
director. And so I'm not too sure if we're going to get an objective
process to this, and then there was another quote that was in the
paper that really started to disturb -- to disturb me as far as what was
going on, I wouldn't take this job unless there was a clear
understanding that we are going to have a clean, honest, open
evaluation, and submit the findings to the State Attorney and the
Commissioners. If you're going to submit the findings to the State
Attorney anyway, why don't -- and I'm going this week with the
County Attorney, and I'm going to take that investigation and turn it
over to the State Attorney's Office, because why do we want to have
taxpayers' money pay for an investigator to turn it over to county
taxpayers money paying for the State Attorney's Office to do the
investigation. Let's just do it one time.
I'll take that up this week. I just wanted to give the board notice
that I was going to' do that in the process, because this has gone on
too long. We just need to get it over and done with in that process.
So that's the first, and then my last item is that the next BCC
meeting is on the 18th of November, and I just wanted to make sure
-- we mentioned it a couple of times during this meeting but I just
wanted to make sure we told the public out there again, because of
Veterans Day and because of the legislative session that falls on the
fourth Tuesday, the board decided many months ago to only have
one meeting in November, that will be held on the 18th of November
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's going to be a long one.
MR. MUDD: -- the third Tuesday of the month.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, bring a pillow.
Page 189
October 28, 2003
yOU.
Commissioner Halas, do you have anything?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I don't have anything. Thank
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I just have one thing, as the public is
-- or the County is seeking an arbitrator for EMS and the County, I'm
going to commit to stay out of that process, because I feel that the
union will try to contact me or other commissioners, and I'm going to
let the whole system -- the whole thing play out without meeting with
anybody.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that's a good idea for all of
us to follow.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, that's up to you --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- you know, that's just my personal
belief.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing else, other than that I
agree with your comment about staying out of that process.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just glad to see Donna Fiala
back --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and at it again.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks for all your patience with
me.
MR. HENNING: Is that it?
MR. MUDD: That's it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're adjourned.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
Page 190
October 28, 2003
*****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
RESOLUTION 2003-364 REGARDING FINAL APPROVAL OF
THE ROADWAY (PRIVATE), DRAINAGE, WATER AND
SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "IBIS
COVE, PHASE ONE". THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED, THE
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
MAINTAINED BY COLLIER COUNTY-WITH RELEASE OF
THE MAINTENANCE SECIIRITY
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 2003-365: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE), DRAINAGE, 'WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "NAPLES LAKES
SHOPPING CENTER". THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED, THE
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
MAINTAINED BY COLLIER COUNTY-WITH RELEASE OF
THE MAINTENANCE SECI IRITY
Item #16A3 -Continued to November 18, 2003 BCC Meeting
FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY (PRIVATE),
DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF "LINKS AT THE STRAND". THE ROADWAY
AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIVATELY
Page 191
October 28, 2003
MAINTAINED, THE WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
WILL BE MAINTAINED BY COLLIER COUNTY-WITH
RF. IJF, ASF. OF THE MAINTENANCE SF. CI IRITY
Item # 16A4
RESOLUTION 2003-366: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE), DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "NAPLES
GATEWAY, PHASE 2". THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED, THE
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
MAINTAINED BY COLLIER COUNTY-WITH RELEASE OF
THE MAINTENANCE SFJCI IRITY
Item # 16A5
RESOLUTION 2003-367: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "ARIELLE"-WITH
RF, I,F. ASF. OF THE MAINTF. NANCE SF. CI IRITY
Item #16A6
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "NORTH NAPLES
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PARK", 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
Page 192
October 28, 2003
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
JASMINE PO1NTE-WITH RF.I.F. ASE OF THE lIPS
Item #16A8
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
SPOONBILL COVE AT CARIJTON LAKES-WITH RELEASE OF
THE 1JPS
Item #16A9
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
BRIDGEWATER BAY CLUBHOUSE-WITH RELEASE OF THE
I~PS
Item #16Al0
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
BRIDGEWATER BAY, PHASE ONE-WITH RELEASE OF THE
l JPS
Item #16Al 1
CP-2003-05: REGARDING CARNY-2003-AR-4798, REVEREND
JOSEPH SPINELLI, OSA, ST. ELIZABETH SETON CHURCH
REQUESTING PERMIT TO CONDUCT A CARNIVAL FROM
NOVEMBER 5 THROUGH NOVEMBER 9, 2003, ON THE
CHURCH PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2760 52ND TERRACE SW,
GOIJDF, N GATE CITY
Item #16A12
Page 193
October 28, 2003
RESOLUTION 2003-368: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE), DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "TROON LAKES"
THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
PRIVATELY MAINTAINED, THE WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE MAINTAINED BY COLLIER
COUNTY-WITH RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE
SECI JRITY
Item #16A13
AWARD RFP #03-3537, "TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
MARKETING SERVICES" (IN THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL
AMOUNT OF $820,000)-TO PARADISE ADVERTISING AND
MARKF, T1NG~ 1NC.
Item #16A14
AWARD RFP #03-3540, TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
FULFILLMENT SERVICES (IN THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL
AMOIJNT OF $65,000)-TO PHASE V
Item #16A15
COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.583-1-AR-3960
"MARETE COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION", LOCATED IN
SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST;
BOUNDED ON THE EAST AND SOUTH BY VACANT LAND
ZONED AGRICULTURAL, ON THE WEST AND NORTH BY
OCCUPIED LAND ZONED AGRICULTURAL-WITH
STIPI IIJATIONS
Page 194
October 28, 2003
Item #16A16
AWARD RFP #03-3538, "TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
RESEARCH SERVICES" (IN THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL
AMOI tNT OF $75:000)-TO EVANS-KI.AGF. S: INC.
Item #16Al 7
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY "A" BEACH
RENOURISHMENT/MAINTENANCE GRANT APPLICATIONS
AND BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003/2004
IN THE AMOI JNT OF $316,900
Item #16A18
RESOLUTION 2003-369: AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION
2003-340 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-CONCERNING THE
NEW FEE PROPOSED FOR THE DRI ABANDONMENT
PROCESS AND VARIOIIS OTHER CHANGES
Item #16A19
WAIVE RECOVERY OF RELOCATION EXPENSES OF
$4,855.06, RESULTING FROM THE NEGOTIATED
RESIGNATION OF MS. MARGARET WUERSTLE AS
PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR, RELEASING ANY RIGHT
THE COUNTY MAY HAVE IN RECLAIMING SAID
RELOCATION EXPENSES, FINDING THAT PAYMENT OF
RELOCATION EXPENSES, IN THIS CASE, ARE IN THE BEST
Page 195
October 28, 2003
INTEREST OF THF, COl INTY
Item #16B 1
RESOLUTION 2003-370: AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
56, WHICH ESTABLISHED AN AD HOC ADVISORY
COMMITTEE TO PROVIDE INPUT AND GUIDANCE IN THE
AESTHETIC APPEARANCE OF THE 1-75/GOLDEN GATE
PARKWAY INTERCHANGE, BY REDUCING THE NUMBER OF
VOTING MEMBERS FROM SEVEN TO FIVE, AND REDUCING
THE NUMBER OF NON-VOTING MEMBERS FROM THREE TO
TWO
Item # 16B2
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO CARRY FORWARD FUNDS TO
RE-OPEN A PURCHASE ORDER IN FY04 THAT WAS CLOSED
BY MISTAKE 1N FY03 IN THE AMOI JNT OF $237490
Item #16B3
APPROVING BID #03-3561, SR951 AT FIDDLER'S CREEK
MSTD ROADWAY GROUNDS MAINTENANCE IN THE
AMOUNT OF $21,143.70 TO GREEN HERON LANDSCAPES,
INC
Item #16B4
RESOLUTION 2003-371: AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION
BY GIFT OR PURCHASE OF A FEE SIMPLE INTEREST IN THE
PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY AND/OR STORMWATER
RETENTION AND TREATMENT POND SITES, AS WELL AS
Page 196
October 28, 2003
PERPETUAL, NON-EXCLUSIVE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY,
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS, AND TEMPORARY
DRIVEWAY RESTORATION EASEMENTS, AND TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS, WHICH WILL BE REQUIRED
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAY, DRAINAGE AND
UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS TO RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK
ROAD (CR 864) FROM POLLY AVENUE TO COLLIER
BOULEVARD (CR 951). (CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT
NO. 77, PROJECT NO. 60169). ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT:
$2~230~000
Item #16B5
RESOLUTION 2003-372: AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION
BY GIFT OR PURCHASE OF A FEE SIMPLE INTEREST IN THE
PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY AND/OR STORMWATER
RETENTION AND TREATMENT POND SITES, AS WELL AS
PERPETUAL, NON-EXCLUSIVE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY,
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS, AND TEMPORARY
DRIVEWAY RESTORATION EASEMENTS, AND TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS, WHICH WILL BE REQUIRED
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAY, DRAINAGE AND
UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS TO COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR
951) FROM GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD TO IMMOKALEE
ROAD. (CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT NO. 37,
PROJECT NO. 65061). ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT:
$4,5587540
Item #16B6
APPROVING SELECTION COMMITTEE'S RANKING OF
FIRMS FOR CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS FOR RFP 03-3559
Page 197
October 28, 2003
"CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR THE UPDATE OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PATHWAY PLAN"-
THE FIRMS ARE: SPRINKLE CONSULTING, JOHNSON
ENGINEERING AND RENAISSANCE PI,ANN1NG GROI JP
Item #16B7
AN INCREASE OF CONTINGENCY FUNDS FROM THE
CURRENT 5% UP TO THE MAXIMUM 10% FOR THE
GOODLETTE FRANK ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT,
FROM PINE RIDGE ROAD TO VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD,
PROJECT NO. 60134, BID NO. 02-3424-WITH AJAX PAVING
1NDI ISTRIFJS~ 1NC. IN THE AMOI INT OF $600~000
Item #16B8 -Continued to November 18, 2003 BCC Meeting
IMPLEMENTING CERTAIN PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES
TO STANDARDIZE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES (TIS)-AS
DF, TAIIJFD IN THE F, XF, CI ITIVE SI IMMARY
Item #16B9
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 IN THE AMOUNT OF $112,117.09 TO
THOMAS MARINE CONSTRUCTION, INC., FOR THE
LAKELAND AVENUE BRIDGE AND ROADWAY
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, FROM PIPER BOULEVARD TO
IMMOKAIJF, F, ROAD~ PROJECT NO. 66041~ lqlD NO_ 03-3492
Item # 16C 1
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR COUNTYWIDE SAND SEARCH,
PROJECT 90527, TO FUND STAFF EFFORT IN ACQUIRING
Page 198
October 28, 2003
TEMPORARY BEACH MAINTENANCE EASEMENTS, IN THE
AMOI INT OF $100~000
Item # 16C2
WORK ORDER MAC-FT-04-01 TO MCKIM AND CREED
ENGINEERS FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO
CONTROL AND TELEMETRY UPGRADES FOR
CARICA/VANDERBILT/BAREFOOT PUMP STATIONS IN THE
AMOI JNT OF $817000 FOR PROJECT 70124
Item #16C3
WORK ORDER CAR-FT-04-01 TO CAROLLO ENGINEERS FOR
ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO SCADA AND
CONTROL NETWORK UPGRADES AT THE NORTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLAN IN THE AMOUNT OF
$84~850 FOR PROJECT 70094
Item #16C4
AMENDMENT TO THE FDEP BEACH EROSION CONTROL
PROGRAM PROJECT AGREEMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT
OF UP TO AN ADDITIONAL $353,715-AMENDMENT NO. 1,
DEP AGREF, MFNT NO. 01 CO 1
Item gl 6C5
RESOLUTION 2003-373' SUPPORTING CONTINUED STATE
FI JND1NG OF COASTAl, PROJECTS
Item #16C6
Page 199
October 28, 2003
AUTHORIZING AN INTEREST PAYMENT IN COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FLORIDA PROMPT PAYMENT ACT RELATED TO
CONTRACT #02-3348 GOLDEN GATE WELLFIELD
RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT 70066, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $7,397.91-WITH FLORIDA STATE
1J-NDERGROI IND
Item #16C7
AWARDING CONTRACTS 03-3427 "ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERING, REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION
SERVICES FOR COLLIER COUNTY" (ESTIMATED DOLLAR
AMOUNT OF CONTRACT NOT TO EXCEED $3,000,000
ANNUALLY PER FIRM)-TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICE
1NDI LqTRIF, S (PSI), MACTEC AND MF, TCAIJF & EDDY
Item # 16C8
TWO WORK ORDER AMENDMENTS, UNDER CONTRACT
#01-3271, FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
SERVICES FOR COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS,
WITH COASTAL PLANNING AND ENGINEERING FOR SAND
SEARCH PHASE 3 AND MARINE RESOURCES
INVESTIGATION AS PART OF THE COUNTYWIDE SAND
SEARCH, PROJECT 90527, IN THE COMBINED REDUCED
A MOI INT OF $267509
Item #16C9
TWO BUDGET AMENDMENTS IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF
$31,850 AND A WORK ORDER AMENDMENT WITH GREELEY
Page 200
October 28, 2003
AND HANSEN LLC UNDER CONTRACT #00-3119, FIXED
TERM PROFESSIONAL UTILITY ENGINEERING SERVICES,
FOR THE UPDAT1NG OF THE COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES
STANDARDS IN THF, AMOIJNT OF $31 ~849~ PROJF. CT 70202
Item # 16C 10
WAIVING THE PURCHASING POLICY VII (F) AND STAFF TO
MODIFY THE PURCHASE ORDER TO ADVANCED CONTROL
CONSULTING IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,500 FOR PROJECT
74033-OF THF, RF.I JSF. SYSTF, M TF. IJF. MF, TRY
Item #16C 11
APPROVING AND RECORDING THE NEW AGREEMENT FOR
DELIVERY AND REUSE OF RECLAIMED WATER AND
TERMINATION OF THE EXISTING AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT AND
WINDSTAR CLUB, INC-AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SI ~MM A R Y
Item #16C12
AWARDING BID NUMBER 03-3531 FOR LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE IN THE BASE COST AMOUNT OF $89,157
FOR WELLS AND FACILITIES TO GROUND ZERO
I,ANDSCAPING SF. RVICF.: INCORPORATF. D
Item # 16D 1
ADDITIONS TO AGREEMENTS BETWEEN SIRSI
CORPORATION AND COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF
Page 201
October 28, 2003
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO EXTEND THE CONTRACT
FOR INTERNET ACCESS-FOR ALL COLLIER COUNTY
I,IBR ARIF, S
Item #16D2
AWARDING WORK ORDER #PBS-02-30 IN THE NEGOTIATED
AMOUNT OF $119,730 TO PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
SYSTEMS FOR THE RENOVATION OF TIGERTAIL BEACH
PARK~ PHASF, II-FOR CONTRACT #02-3349
Item gl 6D3
AGREEMENT WITH STOCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF UPGRADED SPORTS FIELD LIGHTING
AT EAGLE LAKES COMMUNITY PARK AT NO COST TO
COIJI,IER COl JNTY
Item #16D4
WORK ORDER #CT-02-03 IN THE AMOLrNT OF $130,241 TO
THE CHRIS-TEL COMPANY FOR THE RENOVATION OF
1:1AYVIF~W PARK
Item #16D5
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING $83,000 IN REVENUE
FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROGRAM FOR THE EAST NAPLES COMMUNITY CENTER
SENIOR CENTER EXPANSION PROJF,CT
Item # 16D6
Page 202
October 28, 2003
AMENDMENTS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY FAIR BOARD BY-
LAWS-CHANGES ARE DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SIIMMARY
Item #16D7
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $64,380.36 TO
RECOGNIZE REPAYMENT TO THE GRANT FUND FROM EMS
-ALLOWING COLLIER COUNTY EMS TO BE IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA GRANT
POIJCY AND PROCF, DI IRF, S
Item # 16D8
RESOLUTION 2003-374: REQUEST BY COLLIER COUNTY
DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES WAIVING DOG AND CAT
LICENSE FEES FOR FOUR DAYS DURING NOVEMBER'S
SHELTER APPRECIATION WEEK-NOVEMBER 1 ST,
NOVEMBF, R 4TH~ NOVF, MBF. R 6TH AND NOVF, MBF. R 8~ 2003
Item # 16F 1
BUDGET AMENDMENT REPORT- BA #04-013 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $14,200 TO PAY FOR EQUIPMENT FOR FIRE
FNGINF, Pl IRCHASF, D IN FY03-1SI,FJS OF CAPRI
Item # 16H 1
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR APPROVING
PAYMENT TO ATTEND SWFRPC BOTM ANNIVERSARY
CELEBRATION-ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2003 AT
Page 203
October 28, 2003
THE HARBORSIDE EVENT CENTER AT A COST OF $25.00.
PUBLIC PURPOSE: AS CHAIR OF TRANSPORTATION
DISADVANTAGE AND TO INTERACT WITH OTHER
MF, MFIFRS FROM ROI ITHWF, ST FI~ORIDA
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR APPROVING
PAYMENT TO ATTEND SWFRPC 30TM ANNIVERSARY
CELEBRATION-ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2003 AT
THE HARBORSIDE EVENT CENTER AT A COST OF $25.00.
PUBLIC PURPOSE: TO REPRESENT THE COUNTY AT THIS
LUNCHEON AS A MEMBER OF THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
RF, GIONAI, PI~ANNING COl JNCII~
Item #16H3 - Moved to Item #9D
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 204
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
October 28, 2003
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
Districts:
1. Mosquito Control District - FY 2003-2004 Meeting Schedule.
2. Heritage Greens Community Development District - Minutes for July 14,
2003; Agenda for July 14, 2003; Operating Budget FY 2004.
Minutes:
1. Collier County Planning Commission - Agenda for October 2, 2003
Minutes of September 4, 2003.
2. Bayshore Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda for October 8, 2003; Minutes
of September 10, 2003.
3. Bayshore Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board -
Agenda for October 7, 2003.
4. Lely Golf Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for October 16,
2003; Minutes of September 11, 2003.
5. Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee Meeting - Minutes of
Monday July 21, 2003.
6. Pelican Bay Services - Agenda for October 1, 2003; Minutes of
September 4, 2003; Minutes for the Budget Sub-Committee September 10,
2003; Clam Bay Sub-Committee - Agenda for October 1, 2003; Minutes
of June 26, 2003 and Adopted Budget for FY 2004.
7. Development Services Advisory Committee - Agenda for October 1,
2003; Minutes of September 3, 2003.
8. Productivity Committee - Minutes of August 20, 2003.
9. Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board - Notice of Meeting and
Agenda - September 25, 2003.
H:Data/Format
Co
10.
11.
12.
13.
Environmental Advisory Committee - Agenda for October 1, 2003;
Minutes of August 6, 2003; Environmental Impact Statements and
Vegetation Removal Packet.
Vanderbilt Beach M.S.T.U. Advisor~ Committee - Summary of Motions
and Minutes for September 4, 2003; Agenda for October 2, 2003.
Coastal Advisory_ Committee - Agenda for June 12, 2003, August 12,
2003; Affidavit of Publication Notices for the NDN from January, 2003
through September 11, 2003; Minutes from January 9, 2003, February 21,
2003, March 13, 2003, April 10, 2003, May 8, 2003, June 12, 2003 and
August 12, 2003.
Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage M.S.T.U. - Minutes of September
1 l, 2003.
Other:
1) Guy L. Carlton, Collier County Tax Collector - The Errors and Insolvencies
list for the tax year 2002.
H:Data/Format
October 28, 2003
Item # 16J 1
ENDORSEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE/DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY FEDERAL
F, OI IITAlalI~FJ SHARING ANNIIAIJ CERTIFICATION REPORT
Item #16J2
DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE PURCHASES OF
GOODS AND SERVICES DOCUMENTED IN THE DETAILED
REPORT OF OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS SERVE A VALID
PUBLIC PURPOSE AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE
OF COUNTY FUNDS TO SATISFY SAID PURCHASES-FROM
OCTOBER 47 2003 THROI IGH OCTOlalER 17~ 2003
Item # 16K1
RESOLUTION 2003-375: AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-126 TO CORRECT REFERENCES TO
THFJ EXHIBITS IN THAT RFJSOI~I JTION
Item #16K2
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE FEE
SIMPLE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 191 IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. G JR OF NAPLES INC., ETAL,
CASE NO. 02-2212-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT #60018)
-$18,100.00 TO BE PAID TO THE RESPONDENTS, THOMAS
AND PATRICIA SAMS, INCLUDING ATTORNEY FEES,
EXPFRT FEF, S AND COSTS
Item # 17A
Page 205
October 28, 2003
RESOLUTION 2003-376: PETITION AVPLAT2003-AR3691 TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND
THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN THE 20 FOOT WIDE ALLEY IN
BLOCK 50, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF "NEWMARKET
SUBDIVISION", AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGES 104
AND 105, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, LOCATED IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH,
RANGE 29 EAST
Item #17B
THIS ITEM FIEING CONTINI lED TO THE NOVEMBER 1 8_ 2003
[ICC MEETING. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 74 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS
AND ORDINANCES, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO.
2001-13, THE COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT
FEE ORDINANCE, 2001-13, AS AMENDED, BY
ESTABLISHING A DEFERRAL PROGRAM FOR THE
IMMOKALEE AREA TO REDUCE THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS
OF INCREASED IMPACT FEE RATES
Page 206
October 28, 2003
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:09 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL -
TOM HENNING, Chaiqxnan
DWIGHT E. I~ROCK, CLERK
Tliese minutes apTed by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE NOTTINGHAM AND
DAWN McCONNELL
Page 207