BCC Minutes 04/13/2004 R
April 13, 2004
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, April!3, 2004
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such
special district as has been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Donna Fiala
Frank Halas
Tom Henning
Fred W. Coyle
Jim Coletta
ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Jim Mitchell, Office of the Clerk of Court
1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
~
AGENDA
April 13, 2004
9:00 a.m.
Donna Fiala, Chairman, District 1
Fred W. Coyle, Vice-Chairman, District 4
Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2
Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3
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. 2003-53, AS AMENDED 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 VERBA TIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5)
MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
B. March 9, 2004 - BCC Regular Meeting
C. March 10, 2004 - BCC Regular Continued from March 9, 2004
D. March 12, 2004 - CRA Meeting
E. March 15, 2004 - BCC/Stormwater Workshop
F. March 16, 2004 - BCC/Boathouse Workshop
G. March 17, 2004 - BCC/District 4 Townhall Meeting
H. March 23, 2004 - BCC/Regular
I. April 1, 2004 - BCC/District 1 Town Hall Meeting
SERVICE AWARDS
PROCLAMATIONS
e
e
Ae
The Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce, in cooperation with the Naples
Daily News, Sprint, and Comcast is celebrating "Distinguished Public
Services Awards Day". To be accepted by Brenda Borchardt, Vice President
for The Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce Programs.
Be
Proclamation to recognize the month of April as National Fair Housing
Month in Collier County. To be accepted by Candace Tapscott, Director,
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
5. PRESENTATIONS
Ae
This item to be heard at 9:30 a.m. Regional Director Amelio Vazquez
extending greetings from Senator Bill Nelson.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
Ae
Public Petition Request by Douglas Wilcox to discuss the Public Vehicle
Advisory Committee Ordinance.
Be
Public Petition Request by Kurt Potter to discuss an amendment to Collier
County COPCN Ordinance 2004-12.
Ce
C. Public Petition request by Lynda Flynn to discuss providing seating area
at public beach access on Vanderbilt Beach.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ae
This item to be heard at 1:00 p.m. A Resolution by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, approving the Collier County
Second Amended Consolidated Plan One-Year Action Plan for Fiscal Year
2002-2003 for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) funding,
authorizing necessary certifications, approving execution of CDBG sub-
recipient agreements by Community Development and Environmental
Services (CDES) Division Administrator, authorizing submission to the
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and
providing for an effective date.
This item to be heard at 1:00 p.m. A Resolution by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, approving the Fiscal Year 2004-
2005 Collier County Consolidated Plan One-Year Action Plan, for
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home Investment
Partnerships (HOME) and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) programs,
authorizing necessary certifications, approving execution of CDBG sub-
recipient agreements by CDES Division Administrator, authorizing
submission to the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development, and providing for an effective date.
C®
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition RZ-2003-AR-
3973 Amerisite LLC, represented by Terrance Kepple of Kepple
Engineering, Inc., requesting a rezone from the "A" Rural Agricultural
zoning district to the "C- 3" zoning district, for property located at Collier
Boulevard (east side) ¼ mile north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road, in
Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 9.24 acres.
De
Recommend this item to be continued to the April 27~ 2004 BCC
Meeting. Petition for the establishment of the VeronaWalk Community
Development District.
This item continued from the March 23~ 2004 BCC Agenda. An
Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, Amending Ordinance No. 2003-61 and No. 2003-62 to Clarify the
Effective Date Provisions of Those Ordinances; and Amending Chapter 49
of the Code of Laws and Ordinances, As Created by Ordinance Nos. 2003-
61 & 2003-62, By Amending Sections 49- 25 and 49-45, Respectively,
Pertaining to Program Eligibility Criteria; Providing for Conflict and
Severability; Providing for Inclusion in Code of Laws and Ordinances; and
Providing for an Effective Date. An amendment to amend the geographic
boundaries of the previously approved Ordinance.
This item continued from the March 23~ 2004 BCC Agenda. Adoption of
an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, amending Ordinance No. 2003-63, the Immokalee Residential
Impact Fee Deferral Program, to clarify the effective date provisions. An
amendment to amend the geographic boundaries of the previously approved
Ordinance.
Gm
Recommend this item to be continued to the April 27~ 2004 BCC
Meeting. A Public Hearing to Consider an Application submitted by Naples
Community Hospital to the Board of County Commissioners for the
Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Provide
Transportation Services for the Inter-facility Transfer of Post Hospital
Patients.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Affordable Housing Commission
B. Appointment of member to the County Government Productivity Committee
C. Appointment of members to the Animal Services Advisory Board
D. Appointment of member to the Collier County Planning Commission
E. Appointment of member to the Black Affairs Advisory Board
F. Appointment of members to the Environmental Advisory Council
G. Appointment of members to the Tourist Development Council
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
Ao
Approve Tourist Development Category "A" 1 O-Year Expense and Revenue
Projections
Be
Approve four Tourist Development Category "A" Grant Applications
submitted by the Parks & Recreation Department for Beach Park facilities
for Fiscal Year 2005 in the total amount of $307,000.
Ce
Make a determination if Hideaway Beach is an eligible Category A project
for the use of TDC funds based on the current approved BCC policy, dated
December 16, 2003. Then approve or deny a TDC Category "A" Grant
Application requested by the City of Marco Island for the Renourishment
and Replacement of Temporary T-Groins on Hideaway Beach, Project
90502, in the Amount of $4,457,000.
Approve The Denial Of Two Tourist Development Category "A" Grant
Applications submitted by the City of Naples for Monitoring Of T-Groins
and Turtle Monitoring at Gordon Pass for Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005 In
The Amount Of $59,964.
Eo
Approve an Inteflocal Agreement between Collier County and the City of
Naples indicating that Collier County will withdraw its appeal to object to
the City's proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment regarding overpasses
and that the City shall not object to its construction; Project No. 60027-C;
No Fiscal Impact
Authorize the Purchasing Department to advertise bids for the construction
of the grade separated overpass at Airport-Pulling Road and Golden Gate
Parkway; Project No. 60027-C; Fiscal Impact $500.00
Ge
This item to be heard at 3:00 p.m. Conducting the Conservation Collier
annual public meeting to provide an update on the program's past activities
and to provide direction to staff for implementing a future outreach strategy,
for soliciting proposals and applications, and for identifying a finance
strategy.
He
Recommendation to approve a resolution pursuant to Section 112.061 (14),
Florida Statutes, adopting the federal schedule for travel reimbursement
rates for subsistence and mileage for County employees who are traveling on
County business.
Item required to be on Regular Agenda per previous Board direction.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Horse Creek Estates",
formerly known as "Little Palm Island", and approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security. (This is a companion to Item 10J)
Petition AVESMT2003-AR5088 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the
County's and the Public's interest in a portion of the Utility Easement
conveyed to Collier County by separate instrument and recorded in Official
Record Book 637, Page 857, and all of the Drainage Easement conveyed to
Collier County by separate instrument and recorded in Official Record Book
2248, Pages 1057 through 1058, Public Records of Collier County, Florida.
11.
Located in Section 23, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. (This is a
companion item to Item 10I)
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
A. William Klohn
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1)
2)
3)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Bradford Lakes"
AR 4091, and approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Mustang Island II",
AR-3811, and approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
Request to grant final approval of the roadway (private), drainage,
water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Naples Lakes
Country Club". The roadway and drainage improvements will be
privately maintained, the water and sewer improvements will be
maintained by Collier County.
4)
To accept Assignment Agreement for the water and sewer facilities
easements for Fiddler's Creek, Lake 88.
5)
To have the Board of County Commissioners set a public hearing date
on May 11, 2004 for consideration of the abandonment of the
Development Order as specified in petition DRIABN-03-AR-4987,
the Twelve Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI) for
property located on the north side of Davis Boulevard (SR-84) and the
south side of Radio Road (CR-856) in Section 4, Township 50 south,
Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida.
6)
Proposed Amendment to Resolution 2004-17, 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.
7)
Direct Staff to revise the Littoral Shelf Standards of the LDC to
clearly indicate that nonfunctioning Littoral Shelves shall meet the
listed criteria identified in the LDC.
8)
To accept Assignment Agreement for water and sewer facilities
easements for Fiddler's Creek, Phase 3, Unit 2 aka Sandpiper Drive.
9)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Independence
Phase One", and approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
IO)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Fiddler's Creek
Phase Four, Unit One", and approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
11)
Final Acceptance Of Water Utility Facilities for First Baptist Church,
Phase 1-A & 1-B.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
Approve award of a construction contract with John Carlo, Inc. for
intersection improvements in the amount of $507,543.69 on Golden
Gate Parkway at Sunshine Boulevard, Bid No. 04-3619.
2)
Award a construction contract in the amount of $1,860,563.00 to
Douglas N. Higgins, Inc. and allocate $186,000.00 (10% of the
construction cost) for contingency purposes to construct the proposed
13th street SW road project, Golden Gate Boulevard to 16th Avenue
SW, Project No. 69068, Bid No. 04-3625.
3)
Approve a budget amendment to shift $1,105,000.00 between
budgeted projects for a mid-year adjustment to the Stormwater Capital
Improvement program.
4)
Request the Board to accept donated trees from the Bonita Bay Group
for landscaping on Livingston Road.
$)
Request the Board approve an agreement which gives donated plants
to homeowners for use as road buffering and general beautification
along Vanderbilt Beach Road.
6)
Award work order no. UC-004 to Kyle Construction Inc., for the
Immokalee Fifth Street ditch project (project no. 51725) in the amount
of $371,856.59 and accept a temporary construction license.
7)
Award bid #04-3622, Rattlesnake Hammock Road (CR 864)
landscape construction improvement project (US 41 to East Polly
Avenue) landscape improvement project to Hannula Landscaping,
Inc. in the amount of $489,897.76.
8)
Approve the Chairman to enter into a landscaping installation and
maintenance highway agreement with the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) within the unincorporated area of Collier
County, Florida for SR 93/175 at Golden Gate.
9)
That the Board issue a Resolution approving and authorizing the
Chairman to sign a highway landscaping installation and maintenance
agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation(FDOT) for
landscape development improvement for a portion of the 1-75/Pine
Road Interchange.
That the Board issue a Resolution approving and authorizing the
Chairman to sign a highway landscaping installation and maintenance
agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for
landscape development improvements within the unpaved areas
within the right-of-way of US41E/SR 45 fi.om Rattlesnake Hammock
Road to St. Andrews Boulevard.
11)
Award bid #04-3627, Airport Pulling Road north median landscape
installation improvement project to Hannula Landscaping, Inc. in the
amount of $510,605.66.
Award bid #04-3623, Pine Ridge Road (CR896) median landscape
improvement construction project to Hannula Landscaping, Inc. in the
amount of $621,509.35.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1)
Amend 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 Plant in the
amount of $539,113.
2)
Approve funding related to upgrading the flow metering system at the
South County Regional Water Treatment Plant, in the amount of
$300,000, Project 71021.
3)
Approve Change Order 8 (Final) to the Design Build Contract with
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., for Additional Reverse Osmosis Raw Water
Supply Wells and In-Plant Modifications for the North County
Regional Water Treatment Plant, Projects 70075 and 70094, in the
deduct amount of $40,983.
4)
Approve a Budget Amendment and an Engineering Services Work
Order under Contract # 00-3119, Fixed-Term Professional Utility
Engineering Services, with Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., to conduct a
Feasibility Study for design of a Material Recovery Facility, Project
59002, in the amount of $163,200.
s)
Approve a Work Order, under contract # 01-3271, Fixed Term
Professional Engineering Services for Coastal Zone Management,
with Humiston & Moore Engineers, Inc. for The Annual Monitoring
of Wiggins Pass, project 90001, in the amount of $26,000.
6)
Approve amendment to professional services agreement with Water
Resource Solutions related to Aquifer Storage and Recovery of
Reclaimed Water, RFP 99-2926, Project 74030.
7)
Approve emergency work orders and associated budget amendment
for the repair of Injection Well No. 1 at the North Regional Water
Treatment Plant in the amount of $1,150,350 for Project Number
71041.
8)
Approval to transfer funds in the amount of $48,700 from Water
Pollution Control Fund (114) to miscellaneous grants fund (116) and
to recognize revenue for the Golden Gate Groundwater Baseline
Monitoring Program Contract C-15055 with the South Florida Water
Management District Big Cypress Basin for miscellaneous grants fund
(116) in the amount of $48,700.
9)
Award bid # 04-3577 to Professional Services Industries, Inc. for the
Golden Gate Groundwater Baseline Monitoring Program and approve
the associated budget amendment in the amount of $60,645.
Approve a Work Order, under Contract # 01-3271, Fixed Term
Professional Engineering Services for Coastal Zone Management
Projects, with Humiston & Moore Engineers, Inc. for the annual
monitoring of Hideaway Beach and T-Groins 2004, Project 90540, in
the amount of up to $87,000; approve a Budget Amendment to move
funds which were placed in the wrong project number to this Project
90540, in the amount of $95,000.
Authorize Finalization of Negotiations and approval by the Public
Utilities Administrator of an engineering services work order under
contract # 01-3271, Fixed Term Professional Engineering Services for
Coastal Zone Management Projects, with Coastal Planning &
Engineering Inc. for Annual Monitoring of the County and Naples
Beaches Major Renourishment (Project 90536) in an amount not to
exceed $75,000.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
Approval of real estate incentives to aid the purchase of property for
beach and boat access.
2)
Approve the Summer Food Service Program Grant in the Amount of
$462,000
3)
Direct staff not to pursue a feasibility study of the Wiggins Pass
Marina property.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1)
Declaration of public purpose for the expenditure of up to $500
toward co-sponsorship of the Naples Town Hall Meeting on
Healthcare Solutions.
2)
Approval of the Collier County Group Health and Flexible
Reimbursement Insurance Plan Document effective January 1, 2004.
3)
Report and Ratify Staff-Approved Change Orders and Changes to
Work Orders to Board - Approved Contracts.
4)
Report to the Board Of County Commissioners concerning the sale
and transfer of items associated with the County Surplus Auction of
March 13, 2004, resulting in $315,803.00 in net revenue.
5)
Approve a budget amendment in the amount of $400,000, Project
500281 (Installation of GIS Conduit)
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Award
Bid #04-3632 for Horticulture Debris Hauling Disposal in Pelican
Bay to Wherry Truck Lines, Inc.
2)
Board of County Commissioners authorization for the Clerk of the
Circuit court to pay invoice number 16122 in the amount of $3,264.86
to Kelley Swafford & Roy for services received while tourism was
under contract with the Tourism Alliance of Collier County and to
3)
4)
S)
6)
7)
8)
9)
lo)
find that those services served a public purpose by promoting tourism
in Collier County
Approve Tourist Development Category "A" Grant Applications For
Beach Renourishment and Maintenance For Fiscal Year 2005 In The
Amount Of $687,400
Approve two Tourist Development Category "A" Grant applications
and a budget amendment submitted by the Parks & Recreation
Department for Beach Cleaning 2004 in the amount Of $155,600.
Approve Three TDC Category "A" Grant applications for the
renourishment of Vanderbilt, Pelican Bay, Park Shore and Naples
Beaches in the amount of $14,450,000
Approve two Tourist Development Category "A" Grant Applications
from the City of Naples, approve a budget amendment and approve a
standard tourism agreement for beach cleaning for Fiscal Years 2004
and 2005 in the amount of $179,804.
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Award
Bid #04-3613 for Pelican Bay- Gulf Park and Oakmont Irrigation
Installation to Collier Irrigation, Inc. and approve the necessary
Budget Amendment.
Approve Isles of Capri Fire and Rescue District's application for a
matching (50/50) grant offered by the Florida Division of Forestry in
the amount of $3,156 and approve the necessary budget amendments
to recognize and appropriate the revenue if funds are awarded.
Approve the Ochopee Fire Control District's application for a
matching (50/50) Grant offered by the Florida Division of Forestry in
the amount of $2785.00 and approve the necessary Budget
Amendments to recognize and appropriate revenue.
Approval of Budget Amendment Report - BA #04-171 in the amount
of $20,000 for structural repair of 30% of the boat slips at
Cocohatchee Park; and BA #04-173 in the amount of $49,500 to pay
for increase to the contract for the Goodlette Road project.
11)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the Consent to Use Agreement between the Pelican Bay Foundation,
Inc. and Collier County for a portion of the Water Management
Easement located on Parcel B, Pelican Bay Unit Sixteen.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1)
Approve a budget amendment to increase both the purchase of fuel
and the sale of fuel at Marco Island Airport in the amount of
$169,100.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1)
Commissioner Coletta is requesting approval for payment to attend a
function serving a valid public purpose for the Collier County Medical
Society's Annual Meeting and Installation of Officers for 2004-2005,
as he has been invited to be a speaker at this event.
2)
A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners to extend the
term of the Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory
Committee.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous Items to File for Record with Action as Directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1)
That the Board of County Commissioners make a determination of
whether the purchases of goods and services documented in the
detailed report of open purchase orders serve a valid public purpose
and authorize the expenditure of County funds to satisfy said
purchases. Detailed reports of open purchase orders are available for
review in the County Manager's office.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
Authorize the Making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondent, Nancy
L. Johnson Perry, Successor- Trustee of the Dorothy L. Johnson
Revocable Inter Vivos Trust under Agreement dated June 11, 1998,
for Parcels 136, 836 and 936 in the Amount of $29,520.00 in the
Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. David J. Frey, et al., Case No. 03-
2353-CA (Golden Gate Parkway Project #60027).
2)
Approve the Stipulated Order of Taking and Final Judgment Relative
to the Acquisition of Parcels 159 and 160 in the Lawsuit Styled
Collier County v. Anthony DiNorcia, Jr., et al. Vanderbilt Beach Road
Project #63051.
3)
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment Relative to the Acquisition of
Parcels 137, 737, 837 and 937 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v.
Helen Twitty, et al., Case No. 03-2284-CA (Golden Gate Parkway
Project #60027).
4)
Authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondent Edith G.
Street for Respondent's undivided one-half interest in Parcel No.
159A in the amount of $10,000.00 in the lawsuit styled Collier
County v. Andy R. Morgan, et al., Case No. 02-5169-CA (Immokalee
Road Project #60018).
5)
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the acquisition of
Parcel 196 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Robert W. Pieplow,
et al., Case No. 02-2133-CA (Immokalee Road Project #
60018).
6)
Authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondents Jimmie
L. Rogers and Betty L. Rogers for the fee taking of Parcel No. 200 in
the amount of $74,800.00 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Jeffrey A. Richardson, et al., Case No. 02-2188-CA (Immokalee Road
Project #60018).
7)
Approve the Mediated Settlement Agreement as to Parcels 151 and
152 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. John F. Sudal, et al., Case
No. 02-5168-CA (Immokalee Road Project 60018).
8)
Authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondent James
S. Gran for the acquisition of Parcel No. 167 in the amount of
$7,500.00 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Thomas F. Salzman,
et al., Case No. 03-2550-CA (Golden Gate Parkway Project #60027).
17.
9)
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment Relative to the Easement
Acquisition of Parcel 326 in the Lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Agnaldo DeLima, et al., (Golden Gate Boulevard Project (Project
#63041).
SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO
THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASIJUDICAL IN
NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A®
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2003-AR-3584,
Robert Duane of Hole Montes Inc., of Naples, representing Collier County
Public Schools, requesting a rezone from PUD to PUD for the purpose of
amending the Orangetree PUD text, (Ordinance number 91-43) to include
"Public Educational Plants and Ancillary Plants" as a permitted use to the
"Agriculture" (AG) district of the PUD.
Be
SE-03-AR-3766, an Ordinance amending Ordinance 02-43, the Balmoral
PUD to correct a scrivener's error in Section 1.2 - Legal Description of the
Ordinance to the Balmoral PUD for property that is located on the east side
of Livingston Road (C.R. 881) and the west side of Whippoorwill Lane, in
Section 8, Township 49 south, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida.
Ce
Adopt a Resolution authorizing a change in format to Water and Wastewater
Schedule Two of Appendix A, Ordinance 2001-13 in order to provide clarity
and consistency in the assessment of residential water and wastewater
impact fees; authorizing the inclusion of the Equivalent Residential
Connection (ERC) value range for a one and a half inch (1.5") water meter
in order to correct a scrivener's error; authorizing the repeal of Resolution
No. 2003-93 and Resolution No. 2003-300.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
April 13, 2004
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. The meeting is
called to order. Please stand for our invocation this morning. We
have Jim Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'll please bow your
heads.
Heavenly Father, we come to you today as a community
thanking you for the blessings that you have so generously provided.
Today we are especially thankful for the dedicated elected
officials, staff, and the members of the public who are here to help
lead this county as it makes the important decisions that will shape our
community's future.
We pray that you will guide and direct the decisions made here
today so that your will for our county would always be done.
These things we pray in your holy name, amen.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Amen.
Commissioner Henning, would you lead us in the pledge, please.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2A
REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA-APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now I think we ought to have a
chorus of happy birthday for Commissioner-- CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, don't do that.
(Happy birthday was sung to Commissioner Fiala in unison.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I know I'm blushing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who has the cake?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Kathy brought the cake. Thank you very
2
April 13, 2004
much, Commissioners. What a way to start a day.
And that's 66 years old, and moving on to the next.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Rapidly.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: With someone following me closely
behind.
Oh, my goodness. Are we supposed to levity at a commission
meeting? Isn't it supposed to be all seriousness or something? MR. MUDD: It will be, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for that guarantee.
David, do you have anything to add to the agenda?
MR. WEIGEL: No, nothing official for the agenda, no. We're in
good shape on this side. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, very good.
And Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, sir.
MR. MUDD: -- Commissioners, the agenda changes for the
Board of County Commissioners meeting April 13th, 2004.
First item is to withdraw item 5(A), the regional director, Amelio
Vasquez extended greetings from Senator Bill Nelson, and this is at
the petitioner's request. He couldn't make it today.
The next item is to add item 10(K), and that item's, the Board of
County Commissioners to accept the donation of a 32-foot Regal boat
reported (sic) appraised at $60,000 from Robert and Betty Southwick
to the Board of County Commissioners as Ex-Officio the Governing
Board of the Isles of Capri Fire Rescue District, and to authorize the
signing of an 8283 tax form by Chief Rodriguez in the
acknowledgement of the donation, and that's at staffs request.
Next item, add item 10(M), adopt a resolution opposing proposed
House Bill 1237 and Senate Bill 2322 related to unjustified and
unnecessary elimination of all authority of all Florida local
governments STO charge application fees, transfer fees, siting fees,
3
April 13, 2004
renewal fees and claims for reimbursement of the local government's
out-of-pocket expenses against dealers of communication services,
including television -- including -- excuse me -- cable television
companies, and that's at staffs request.
Next item. It's clarification of item 16(A)6. A resolution of the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida,
establishing a fee schedule for development related review and
processing fees including: Providing for new and revised building
permit, inspection, and land use petition fees; as provided for in
division 1.10 of the Collier County Land Development Code;
superseding resolution 2004-17, and providing for an effective date,
and that's at staffs request.
Next item is move item 16(A)7 to 10(L), and that's to direct staff
to revise the Littoral Shelf Standards of the LDC to clearly indicate
that non-functioning Littoral Shelves shall meet the listed criteria
identified in the Land Development Code, and that's at Commissioner
Henning's request.
The next item is a clarification of item 16(F)7. The total bid
award, Bid 04-3613, amounts to $197,027.50. Funding for the bid
award is from existing appropriations in the Pelican Bay Capital
Improvement Program Fund, which is fund number 322. The
principal funding source in this fund is special assessments levied
solely on property owners within the boundaries of the Municipal
Services Taxing and Benefit Unit, the MSTBU.
Next is item 16(F)8, and it should read, is, approve Isles of Capri
Fire and Rescue District's application for a matching 50/50 grant,
offered to the Florida -- offered by the Florida Division of Forestry in
the amount of $3,157 rather than $3,156, and approve the necessary
budget amendments to recognize and appropriate the revenue if funds
are awarded, and that's at staffs request.
Next item is to move item 17(A) to 8(H). This item requires that
all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
4
April 13, 2004
commission members, and that's PUDZ-2003-AR-3584 by Robert
Duane of Hole Montes, Inc., of Naples, representing Collier County
Public Schools requesting a rezone from PUD to PUD for the purpose
of amending the Orangetree PUD text, which is ordinance number
91-43, to include public education plants and exhillary (sic) -- and
ancillary plants as permitted use to the agricultural (AG) district of the
PUD, and that's at Commissioner Coletta's request.
Then we have some time certain items, ma'am.
Item 8(A), with its companion item, 8(B), to be heard at one
p.m., and both items deal with-- 8(A) deals with the FY-'02-'03
Community Development Block Grants funding, and that's basically
to take one item off and put some stand-by items on, so -- to use those
funds this year, and 8(B) is to approve the Community Development
Block Grants for the '04-'05 fiscal year. Both of those items will be
heard at one p.m.
Item 10(E) to be heard after four p.m., and that's the best I could
do, ma'am, is after four p.m. Approve an interlocal agreement
between Collier County and the City of Naples indicating that Collier
will withdraw its appeal to object to the city's proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendment regarding overpasses and that the
city shall not object to its construction; project number 60027-C.
At the time at -- after four p.m. on this particular item, I'm going
to ask the board to continue this particular item and ask for a vote to
do so because the City of Naples has postponed their particular
hearing of this particular item until they have a public hearing on the
21st. So I'll ask the board to continue this item until the 27th.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we need to make a motion?
MR. MUDD: You can do it now, ma'am, or you can do it later.
If it's on your mind right now, I need a motion to continue this
particular --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So move.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second.
5
April 13, 2004
And any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
Opposed, like sign.
Very good. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Then the item 10(F), to be heard after four p.m.,
and that's to authorize the purchasing department to advertise bids for
the construction of the grant (sic) separated overpass at
Airport-Pulling Road and Golden Gate Parkway, and that's project
60027-C.
Next item is item 10(I), to be heard at 3:30 p.m., and this is a
companion to item 10(J), and that's a request to approve the recording
-- for recording of the final plat of the Horse Creek Estates formerly
known as the Little Palm Island, and approval of the standard form
construction and maintenance agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
The companion item 10(J), to be heard at 3:30 also, is a petition
AVESMT2003-AR-5088, to disclaim, renounce, and vacate the
county's and the public's interest in a portion of the utility easement
conveyed by Collier -- to Collier County by separate instrument and
recorded in Official Record Book 607, page 857, and all of the
drainage easement conveyed to Collier County by separate instrument
and recorded in Official Record Book 2248, pages 10 -- or excuse me
-- 1,057 through 1,058, public records of Collier County, Florida,
located in section 23, township 48 south, range 23 east.
And then last, but not least, item 10(G) to be heard at three p.m.,
6
April 13, 2004
and that's conducting the Conservation Collier annual public meeting
to provide an update to the program's past activities and to provide
direction to staff for implementing a future outreach strategy for
soliciting proposals and applications, and for identifying a finance
strategy.
That's all I have, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Are there any questions on the summary agenda?
MS. FILSON: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MS. FILSON: I have a speaker for the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Bob Krasowski.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. My name
is Bob Krasowski. My comment is directed towards the consent
agenda. There's an item on there under section C, public utilities,
number four, and I would request -- respectfully request that that be
put on the regular agenda so that we could hear the presentation and I
could make some comments on this item in regards -- some comments
on the item, so --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was just wondering if we
could hear your comments now, Bob.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. Well, in lieu of the presentation, this
is an item that requests a budget amendment for engineering services
to be performed by Malcom Pernie, your solid waste consultant, or at
least one of them, and it's for $163,000.
I think that money, the $163,000, could be better spent and more
in line with other programs that you're developing, and that $163,000
could be spent over two years to support a high-level employee in the
Solid Waste Department that could not only study the feasibility of a
7
April 13, 2004
materials reclamation facility, but do many, many other tasks.
So it's -- it's very inefficient use of financial resources here, plus
that money then would be kept in the county. We -- you're developing
policies and working all the time to identify good jobs, good paying
jobs in the county, and you use taxpayer money to encourage
businesses to come here and you look at airports and really stretch
Brown's zone applications (sic) of fund subsidies and stuff like this to
try to accommodate these people. Well, here you have an opportunity
to provide a good paying job with these funds at the higher level, or in
the mid level of good paying jobs, and I think we should look to do
that.
I know you want small government, but sometimes small
government is penny wise and pound foolish. Certainly the million
and a half dollars we've spent on consultants in the Solid Waste
Department since the middle of 2000 could have been used in the way
I'm suggesting. We could have put together a team that could have
done everything that has been done for us from day one, every part of
that, and saved money and had a greater result.
So I guess -- I guess those are my main points. I'd like to make
those points after hearing what the presentation is, but also I'd like to
say, I wouldn't want to be responsible for having Mr. DeLony, the
public utilities director, bring the whole solid waste staff up here and
sit all day at whatever dollars an hour they get. They're high-paid
professionals, the most of them, and -- but if we could even just have
Mr. DeLony -- I'm sure he's familiar with it. It's his department --
come up here during the agenda. The public gets to hear about this.
I'm with the Zero Waste Collier County Group. We've been
working on solid waste issues specific to this effort that started at the
end of 2000 with your elections, the three of you that have been on the
longest. We've been in on this and working on this for all this time.
So it's an important issue. Eventually it's going to lead to
taxation or savings or something that affects everybody in the county,
8
April 13, 2004
and I, frankly, would like to see every -- every aspect of this come
forward, because we have to watch the management skills that are
applied to effectively managing our resources in county government
and the money and what kind of program and why these programs and
why this money is spent.
You know, a lot -- this is a lot of money for that, $163,000.
Small in your terms of a budget, but to us that watch these particular
things -- I've made my point already or my position already, okay? So
that's why I'd like to see this on the regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Actually, I've read all about it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have, too. It doesn't raise any
concern on my part. I think they're doing an excellent job in solid
waste. I think that the money that's been spent on consultants has
been very positive.
I don't know if I'm ready to grow our county government for
something that we need a short-term answer for. I didn't have any red
flags go up for myself. I don't know about my fellow commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I didn't either.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I didn't either.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You didn't either?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. The other commissioners, it's okay
with you?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no changes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Very good.
Bob, we've kind of read all through this. And like you say, it's --
as long as we're familiar with it -- and I believe this stuff is even
posted where anybody can get their hands on it for the public to read.
So it looks like right now we would like to just pass on bringing
it forward to the regular agenda.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. Well--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But thank you for coming up.
9
April 13, 2004
MR. KRASOWSKI: Thank for your --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And thank you for placing your
comments on the record. We appreciate that.
MR. KRASOWSKI: And, you know, having these items on the
consent agenda, people can come and read it, but how many people
actually do that? When it comes in front of the regular commissioner
for discussion -- commission, it's televised, people are here, become
aware of the issues. And I doubt if, within the body of work here that
you read on this, you've heard my comments. So it's nice to have an
opportunity to speak to them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And by your-- by you mentioning your
comments, people who are looking in can have the opportunity to
know it's on there and look it up if they so desire.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, sir.
Okay. Does any commissioner have any ex parte disclosure for
the summary agenda? Now that we've taken off 17(A), we don't -- we
wouldn't disclose that at this time; is that correct, David? MR. WEIGEL: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: God bless you, by the way.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Very good. Does any
commissioner have ex parte disclosure for the summary agenda?
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't have any ex parte on the
summary agenda at this time since we pulled the 17(A), and I also
don't have anything or any disclosures on any other items today that
are going to be discussed, and I have no changes to the agenda.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, can you do
as fine a job as he just did?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just -- ditto. No, I have
nothing to dis -- nothing to disclose on the summary agenda, and I
10
April 13, 2004
have no other changes to the regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: None.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: None.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And I have none either.
Do we have any speakers for the summary agenda?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am, just the one.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Okay. Do any board members
wish to have any other summary agenda item placed on the regular
agenda?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm reading my line-up here.
Does any member of the board have any questions or comments
on the summary or consent agenda items? COMMISSIONER HALAS: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve as amended.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
11
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
April 137 2004
Withdraw Item 5A Regional Director Amelio Vazquez extending greetings from
Senator Bill Nelson. (Petitioner request.)
Add Item 10K: Board of County Commissioners to accept the donation of a 32-
foot Regal boat reportedly appraised at $60,000 from Robert and Betty Southwick
to the Board of County Commissioners as Ex-Officio the Governing Board of the
Isles of Capri Fire Rescue District and to authorize the signing of an 8283 Tax
Form by Chief Rodriguez in acknowledgement of the donation. (Staff request.)
Add Item 10M: Adopt Resolution opposing proposed House Bill 1237 and Senate
Bill 2322 related to unjustified and unnecessary elimination of all authority of all
Florida local governments STO charge application fees, transfer fees, siting fees,
renewal fees and claims for reimbursement of the local government's out-of-
pocket expenses against dealers of communications services, including cable
television companies. (Staff request.)
Clarification of Item 16(A)6:. A resolution of the Board of County Commissioners
of Collier County, Florida, establishing a fee schedule of development related
review and processing fees including: providing for new and revised building
permit, inspection, and land use petition fees: as provided for in Division 1.10 of
the Collier County Land Development Code: superseding Resolution No. 2004-17,
and providing for an effective date. (Staff request.)
Move Item 16(A)7 to 10L: Direct staff to revise the Littoral Shelf Standards of the
LDC to clearly indicate that non-functioning Littoral Shelves shall meet the listed
criteria identified in the LDC. (Commissioner Henning request.)
Clarification of Item 16(F)7: The total bid award (Bid #04-3613) amounts to
$197,027.50. Funding for the bid award is from existing appropriations in the
Pelican Bay Capital Improvement Program Fund (322). The principal funding
source in this fund is special assessments levied solely on property owners
within the boundaries of the Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit (MSTBU),
Item 16(F)8 should read: Approve Isles of Capri Fire and Rescue District's
application for a matching (50~50) grant offered to the Florida Division of Forestry
in the amount of $3,157 (rather than $3,156) and approve the necessary budget
amendments to recognize and appropriate the revenue if funds are awarded.
(Staff request.)
Move Item 17A to 8H: This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2003-AR-3584,
Robert Duane of Hole Montes, Inc., of Naples, representing Collier County Public
Schools, requesting a rezone from PUD to PUD for the purpose of amending the
Orangetree PUD text, (Ordinance number 91-43) to include "Public Educational
Plants and Ancillary Plants" as a permitted use to the "Agriculture" (AG) district
of the PUD. (Commissioner Coletta request.)
Time Certain Items
Item 8A to be heard at 1:00 p.m. A Resolution by the BCC approving the Collier
County Second Amended Consolidated Plan One-Year Action Plan for Fiscal Year
2002-2003 for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) funding, authorizing
necessary certifications, approving execution of CDBG sub-recipient agreements
by CDES Division Administrator, authorizing submission to the US Department of
Housing and Urban Development and providing for an effective date.
Item 8B to be heard followin.q 8A (1:00 p.m.) A Resolution by the BCC approving
the Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Collier County Consolidated Plan One-Year Action Plan
for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home Investment Partnerships
(HOME) AND Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) programs, authorizing necessary
certifications, approving execution of CDBG sub-recipient agreements by CDES
Division Administrator, authorizing submission to the US Department of Housing
and Urban Development, and providing for an effective date.
Item 10E to be heard after 4:00 p.m. Approve an Interlocal Agreement between
Collier County and the City of Naples indicating that Collier will withdraw its
appeal to object to the City's proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment
regarding overpasses and that the City shall not object to its construction; Project
No. 60027-C.
Item 10F to be heard after 4:00 p.m. Authorize the Purchasing Department to
advertise bids for the construction of the grade separated overpass at Airport-
Pulling Road and Golden Gate Parkway; Project No. 60027-C;
Item 101 to be heard at 3:30 p.m. (This is a companion to Item 10J.) Request to
approve for recording the final plat of "Horse Creek Estates", formerly known as
"Little Palm Island", and approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
Item 10J to be heard immediately followin.q 101 at 3:30 p.m~ (This is a companion
to Item 101.) Petition AVESMT2003-AR5088 to disclaim, re,ounce and vacate the
County's and the public's interest in a portion of the Utility Easement conveyed to
Collier County by separate instrument and recorded in Official Record Book 637,
Page 857, and all of the Drainage Easement conveyed to Collier County by
separate instrument and recorded in Official Record Book 2248, Pages 1057
through 1058, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Located in Section 23,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East.
Item 10G to be heard at 3:00 p.m. Conducting the Conservation Collier annual
public meeting to provide an update on the program's past activities and to
provide direction to staff for implementing a future outreach strategy, for
soliciting proposals and applications, and for identifying a finance strategy.
April 13, 2004
Item #2B, #2C, #2D, #2E, #2F, #2G, #2H and #21
MINUTES OF MARCH 9-10, 2004 BCC REGULAR MEETING,
MINUTES OF MARCH 12, 2004 CRA MEETING, MINUTES OF
MARCH 15, 2004 BCC/STORMWATER WORKSHOP, MINUTES
OF MARCH 16, 2004 BCC/BOATHOUSE WORKSHOP, MINUTES
OF MARCH 17, 2004 DISTRICT 4 TOWNHALL MEETING,
MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2004 BCC REGULAR MEETING AND
MINUTES OF APRIL 1, 2004 BCC/DISTRICT 1 TOWNHALL
MF, F, T1NG- APPROVF, D
May I have a --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the March
9th, '04, BCC regular meeting; March 10th, '04, BCC regular --
continuance of March 9th, '04 meeting; March 12th, '04, CRA
meeting; March 15th, '04, BCC/stormwater workshop; March 16th,
BCC/boathouse workshop; March 17th, '04, BCC/District 4 town hall
meeting; March 27th (sic), '04 BCC/regular meetings; and April Fools,
'04, BCC/District town hall meeting.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And you meant March 23rd
meeting, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay, good. Just for the record. Oh,
I love it when you do that. Thank you so much.
I have a motion to approve all of these items by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
12
April 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
And we move on. We don't have any service awards today, sir?
MR. MUDD: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, very good.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL 21, 2004 AS
DISTINGUISHED PUBLIC SERVICES AWARDS DAY-
ADOPTED
Proclamations. The first proclamation this morning is -- will be
read by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And this proclamation will be
accepted by Bernadette (sic) Borchardt, vice-president of the Greater
Naples Chamber of Commerce Program.
Whereas, the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce in
cooperation with the Naples Daily News, Sprint, and ComCast, is
celebrating Distinguished Public Service Awards Day; and,
Whereas, an individual from law enforcement, fire, and
emergency services will be selected for this award based on
achievements above the norm, and/or generous individual acts
throughout the year;
Whereas, these recipients will be awarded at a breakfast event on
April 21st to be held at Kinney Hall in Naples; and,
Whereas, nominations for these awards have been solicited by
the Naples Daily News through advertisements and through the
various department officers; and,
Whereas, the individuals will be chosen by an anonymous select
13
April 13, 2004
(sic) committee.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners that April 21st, 2004, be designated as Distinguished
Public Service Awards Day, when these outstanding public employees
will be recognized for their outstanding commitments to our
community.
Done and ordered this 13th day of April, 2004, Donna Fiala,
chairperson. And I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
Opposed, like sign.
Very good. Thank you so much.
I want to come. Where is Kinney Hall?
Thank you. If you'd like to make a little speech or something, you're
welcome to do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can we get a picture too, before
we -- whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on. You can hold the proclamation out.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We're going to get your picture there.
Thank you so much. That's going to be an exciting event.
MS. BORCHARDT: On behalf of the chamber and the
wonderful committee that worked very hard on this first annual
Distinguished Public Service Awards Program, we want to thank the
14
April 13, 2004
Board of Commissioners for proclaiming April 21 st Distinguished
Public Service Awards Day. We really appreciate it.
The actual presentation of the awards will be at 7:30 a.m. on that
day, April 21 st, at Kinney Hall, which is up on 11 lth Street on the
campus of St. John the Evangelist. And we would love to have you
there. For information on that, you can call 262-6376. Ms. Fiala
asked for information, so --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's right, yes.
MS. BORCHARDT: And we would love to have you there, so
please call us. And we, again, appreciate this honor. Thank you very
much.
MR. MUDD: Can you say the phone number again, please.'?
MS. BORCHARDT: 262-6376. That's the Greater Naples
Chamber. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
MS. BORCHARDT: Brenda Borchardt. Thank you.
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION TO RECOGNIZE THE MONTH OF APRIL AS
NATIONAI~ FAIR HOI JSING MONTH- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And now we have a proclamation to
recognize the month of April as National Fair Housing Month in
Collier County, to be accepted by Kelsey Harlow. If you'd come up
here, please.
And as embarrassing as it is, if you'd face the audience. That's
tough, isn't it? Thank you.
Whereas, in 2001 -- I better give this proper.
In 2001 Collier County became an entitlement recipient of the
federal funds for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, HUD, under the Community Development Block
15
April 13, 2004
Gram, CDBG, Program; and,
Whereas in FY-2003-2004, Collier County received Home
Investment Partnership Act, that's HOME, funding, and is scheduled
to receive Emergency Shelter Grant, ESG, funding, in FY-2004-2005;
and,
Whereas, Collier County certified that it will positively further
fair housing opportunities and will work to identify and remove
impediments to fair housing choices; and,
Whereas, Collier County's Consolidated One-year Action Plan
for FY-2004-2005 outlines fair housing initiatives that will be
undertaken, including education and outreach programs (sic) to further
fair housing choices for Collier County residents; and,
Whereas, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair
Housing Act of 1968 as amended prohibit the discrimination in the
sale, rental, and financing of dwellings based on ration, color, religion,
sex, national origin, handicap, or familial status; and,
Whereas, the secretary of HUD has proclaimed April, 2004, as
National Fair Housing Month and asked all CDBG entitlement
communities to join them in celebrating the freedom of housing
choices and fair housing opportunities; and,
Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, feel that every American has a right to live where they choose
with dignity and without fear of discrimination and actively support its
fair housing education and outreach initiatives.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the month of April be
recognized as National Fair Housing Month in Collier County.
Done and ordered this 13th day of April, 2004, Board of County
Commissioners, Donna Fiala, chairman. Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion to approve by Donna
16
April 13, 2004
Fiala, and a second by Commissioner Coletta.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
Opposed, like sign.
And thank you very much for being here.
That's very important work. (Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And if you would face the camera, we'll
have you take this. And maybe if you'd like to say a few words.
MS. HARLOW: On behalf of our newly designated secretary,
Alfonso Jackson, our assistant secretary for fair housing and equal
opportunity, Carolyn Peeples, and your local Miami Fair Housing
Office, I am pleased to receive this proclamation.
Your initiation of this proclamation has added significance to the
county's posture on fair housing.
Under the leadership of President Bush, our national commitment
to creating equal housing opportunities for all Americans remains
strong. The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity is proud to
be the agency charged with carrying out the nation's fair housing laws.
HUD's work has ensured that fair housing now plays a central
part in the American Dream. Despite steady progress, minorities still
face intolerable discrimination from mortgage lenders, real estate
agents and apartment rental agents, yet a HUD study shows that the
vast majority who believe they have faced discrimination do nothing
about it. If progress is to continue, citizens need to report
discrimination.
HUD is engaged in a nationwide education and outreach
17
April 13, 2004
campaign in aggressive enforcement. We are working to provide
consumer education, particularly to immigrants and minorities who
are not familiar with home buying or their fair housing rights to make
them more confident on entering into the largest and most important
financial transaction of their lives.
For over 45 years, the federal government has made progress
towards ensuring in America where equality and opportunity in
housing is not simply a goal, but a right. But we can't rest until that
right is reality for all.
Again, thank you very much for emphasizing fair housing,
especially during Fair Housing Month, and we look forward to
continuing our partnership and working with you. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
You know, I forgot to ask Jim Mitchell if he has any comments
from the clerk's office.
MR. MITCHELL: No, we're fine.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine, thank you.
Moving on to public petitions. We have -- I should put this over
here. I know you need better sound.
Public petition request by Douglas Wilcox to discuss the Public
Vehicle Advisory Committee ordinance. Is Douglas Wilcox here?
Okay.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, we'll hold that -- we'll hold that and we'll
announce it before we end today, or at lunch, I'll see if he's back. We
did send him a letter saying that he was scheduled for today based on
his request. It's been published, so --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. And we saw the letter that you had
sent back, so we know that herd received that. Okay, thank you.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY KURT POTTER TO DISCUSS
18
April 13, 2004
AN AMENDMENT TO COLLIER COUNTY COPCN
ORDINANCE 2004-12 - TO BE BROUGHT BACK AND PLACED
ON THE MAY 11:2004 BCC AGENDA
We also have a public petition request by Kurt Potter to discuss
an amendment to Collier County's COPCN ordinance, 2004-12.
MR. POTTER: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the
board. I do have some handouts just for your own edification
purposes.
MR. MUDD: Sir, if you could identify yourself for the record.
MR. POTTER: Sure. My name is actually Chris Potter. Kurt
Potter is my bother. He's the one that turned in the letter. My name is
Chris Potter with Med-Assure, nonemergency transport company here
in Naples. We're a family-owned private transport company that does
nonemergency transport in the Collier County area.
We started approximately three years ago with two vans. Our
family members were the only ones operating these vans at the time.
As of today, three years later, we have eight vans and 16 employees.
I'm here today to ask for a change in the ordinance, 2004-12,
which is the EMS ordinance for application of COPCN or the
Certificate of Need for an ambulance service.
We are -- currently in Collier County there's two different forms
of medical transportation available to the county. There's the ALS
ambulance service, which is the county emergency's 911 service, and
then there is nonemergency transport.
We're asking for a separate classification altogether, which is
BLS, basic life support transport, which is a less level of care than
ALS transport and would not be used for emergency transport at all.
The BLS would be used for routine nonemergency transports in
the county from hospitals to nursing homes to doctors' offices and
such that we are presently now doing.
The -- we think this would benefit the county and its residents in
19
April 13, 2004
multiple ways. First off it would benefit the county because it would
have increased resources. Although it would be a lower level of care,
the EMS system would have increased resources in the fact that these
ambulances would be available in the event of evacuation or mass
casualty incident. They could use these for the stable, less injured
patients that they could then free their ambulances up for the more
critical situations.
It would also give Collier County EMS a larger hiring pool to
draw from, as our employees would also have to be EMTs in order to
operate in the ambulances.
The residents of Collier County at the present time, having to pay
for these transports out of their pockets, when this -- if a BLS
ambulance service was in operation, their Medicare and insurance
companies would pay for a lot of their transports. These benefits are
now being denied because there's not the service available in Collier
County at present time.
And we are asking for you -- we are asking for a resolution to
allow for a COPCN on basic life support. This is not an emergency
ambulance service by any means. This is to cover the residents' needs
in the county right now that are not being provided.
We would also do the out-of-county transport, which is from
obviously the hospitals here in Collier County to hospitals in either
counties, i.e., Miami, Tampa, et cetera, of that nature.
Right now the stable patients that have to go to these areas are
having to wait for ambulance services to come from those areas, so
they're having an hour, two-hour delay in getting an ambulance to
them, and also those revenues that generate from Collier County are
going out of county now.
We think, you know, that this would just benefit everybody
involved, from Collier County to its residents to the EMS system
involved.
Why doesn't -- you can say, why doesn't Collier County
20
April 13, 2004
ambulance service take care of this? This is a -- Medicare only allows
for a BLS rate for these type of transports, these nonemergency
routine transports.
The Collier County EMS would have to absorb these kinds of
runs, would have to staff up more, put more vehicles on the road, and
it would be very cost prohibitive for them to do so. They wouldn't get
enough revenue from the insurance companies to cover these kinds of
transports.
Why should our company be allowed to do this? We have been a
-- you know, we've come to Collier County three years ago, and we've
shown that we can succeed in this county. We've upped the level of
service in nonemergency transport in the county, and we are presently
operated by former EMTs and paramedics.
I, myself, I've been a paramedic for 10 years before I started this
company. My brother back here, he was an EMT in the army and he
also worked at Vanderbilt University Medical Center for several years
before starting this company. We do have medical backgrounds. We
do have, you know, the background from EMS perspective and private
ambulance services.
What would change for Collier County in how it's operating
now? Not -- there would be little change to how the EMS systems and
everything are operating as of the present time.
A BLS level of care is not suitable for emergency medical
response. It's not suitable for interfacility, in-county, intrafacility ALS
transports. The only ALS transport we would request to do is the
out-of-county that are going to other counties that are being done by
private ambulance services right now from other counties. The only
difference is the delay in time of definitive care and the cost of the
money going to other -- other counties.
In the -- what I've handed out to you is two things, is basically
just a summary of what I've just said, and the second is the Medicare
requirements for -- or provisions. And on the very bottom of the first
21
April 13, 2004
page and on the second page, you'll find that Medicare does cover
nonemergency routine transports and it has, you know, specific
reasons why they do -- i.e., if the patient is bed bound and confined to
a bed and cannot be moved by any other means.
Well, if this patient is in a nursing facility and needs to go to a
doctor, Medicare and their insurance companies will pay for that
transport. Right now it's not. They're having to pay for these
transports out of their pockets. And --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta has a question.
MR. POTTER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No-- well, a question-- a
statement basically. At a time of rising medical costs, I think we owe
it to the public to investigate anything that will bring down the cost of
the services provided.
Obviously what we see here is to fill a gap that's in the process to
be able to make it a more affordable process. And I see absolutely no
problem with this. Everything I've read and everything I've studied on
this leads me to believe that this may be an answer that should be
considered.
I, for one, would like to see it brought back for additional
discussion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If that's a motion, I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's a motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor to
bring this back, and a second -- a motion by Commissioner Coletta
and a second by Commissioner Coyle. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is for the county attorney.
What is our liabilities if we start increasing ambulance service here?
How's this -- does this benefit the county, or is it a liability?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, that's a good question. I think that what
we'll find is, if the board should direct it to be brought back, is that the
22
April 13, 2004
staff, meaning the EMS staff, county manager's staff, and the county
attorney will review the business and the liability aspects and provide
that as a report to you.
It's hard to say initially if there is -- if there's going to be liability
by merely changing the ordinance itself. I would tend to think
probably little or no possibility of liability based upon a legislative
change that this petitioner is asking.
In regard to the operations of the business and things of that
nature, I think that there's probably a separation that doesn't create a
problem for Collier County.
But upon your direction, if you should so choose, then we'll be
looking at that issue very specifically as well as the other ways that
the county service aspects of this ordinance would be affected and
bring that information back to you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I got one other question. How is
this service provided today? Is this done by the ambulance service
that we have within Collier County presently? And is there a
reimbursement for people who need to go to the hospital, or is -- as
this gentleman said, is this strictly out of the -- out-of-pocket expense
to the individual that needs to be transported?
MR. DUNNUCK: Good morning. For the record, John
Dunnuck, public services administrator. We're talking about two
services right here, which is what Mr. Potter's talking about, one is the
out-of-county, which we're starting to address with NCH community
hospital.
Presently you have some carriers come in for secondary transport
from out of county. They have a license in the county that they're
taking the person to, and they'll come in, pick them up, take them
back. We don't have anybody with a license inside Collier County to
be able to take them to another jurisdiction, and that's what NCH is
bring forward their certificate for at the next board meeting for the
request to do those type of transports.
23
April 13, 2004
Included along with those transports, too, is NCH is looking
specifically for hospital to hospital internal transports within the
county, which leaves basically your BLS calls from nursing homes, et
cetera, when the transports need to be done, and we fill the gap as
EMS presently right now. We do a number of BLS calls, and we
charge accordingly.
We only can reimburse based upon the schedules that are
provided through Medicare and Medicaid. And -- but I mean, in those
other instances we charge the full rate as adopted by the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So you're -- what you're
telling me is that if it's a requirement and this person is bedridden and
needs to go from a nursing home to a hospital, then you charge the
going rate for Medicare, Medicaid; is that correct?
MR. DUNNUCK: Well, we have a rate structure, and it's
dependent upon who's eligible and who's not for those programs.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And is the patient reimbursed by
the needs of the -- of Medicaid or Medicare?
MR. DUNNUCK: Well, the billing usually -- what we do is we
initially will send the bill to the patient and so forth, and then it will be
worked out through Medicare or Medicaid for the reimbursement
based upon their standards.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what I'm trying to -- what I'm
trying to get clear here is --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: He's not helping you --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. What I'm trying to get clear
here is, if somebody requests a service, do they get reimbursed for
being transported through Medicaid and Medicare?
MR. DUNNUCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Full reimbursement?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Full reimbursement?
MR. DUNNUCK: Yes.
24
April 13, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. POTTER: If I can make an addition to that. That is correct
from nursing facilities to hospitals. But on the other hand, there are
the ones that go from hospitals to nursing facilities and also from
nursing facilities to diagnostic centers and nursing facilities to doctors'
offices that also meet these requirements, and that's what we are
talking about.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I was just going to second
Commissioner Coletta's thing and suggest that, you know, if we vote
to bring it back, we're going to get a chance to ask all these questions
at that point in time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When we bring it back, let's --
give us some information on how this might affect our budget. MR. DUNNUCK: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll hold any other
comments until this comes back, because I see there's a majority here
to bring it back.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, I'd recommend that we bring it
back the first meeting in May, this way your EMSAC gets to hear
about it the last meeting of this month, so they get to talk about it, it
gives Mr. Dunnuck some time to look over the financials in that
particular case, do a little more comprehensive review to give you all
the fiscal impacts. So my recommendation is bring it back for the first
meeting in May.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. The motioner (sic), will that be
acceptable --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- first meeting in May?
25
April 13, 2004
And the second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Very good.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great. We will bring it back. It sounds
like this is something that our elderly population, especially when
they're ill, they're already suffering so many expenses, that I think
they need this. Thank you.
MR. POTTER: Thank you for your time.
Item #6C
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY LYNDA FLYNN TO DISCUSS
PROVIDING SEATING AREA AT PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS ON
VANDERBILT BEACH - PETITIONER ADVISED TO DISCUSS
THIS ITEM WITH THE VANDERBILT BEACH MSTU
ADVISORY BOARD AND THE TRANSPORTATION
DEPARTMENT- DISCI ISSF, D
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Moving on to public petition
request by Lynda Flynn to discuss providing seating area at public
beach access on Vanderbilt Beach.
MS. FLYNN: Good morning.
26
April 13, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good morning.
MS. FLYNN: Good morning. My name is Lynda Flynn from
Mari Vesci Realtors. We're located at 9000 Gulf Shore Drive at the
south end of Vanderbilt Beach, right across from the public beach on
Vanderbilt Beach.
I have provided a sketch, which I believe Mr. Ed Kant, public ri
-- from public right-of-way came over and just reviewed the area. I
don't know if he's here today. He said maybe he would be.
But there's a grass area between the street and the bushes that are
on our property that we would like to donate to the county to create
like a minipark setting, and we'd like to donate four cement tables with
benches to provide some more seating area for the beach-goers and
people that go watch the sunset and so forth.
But that area happens to be in a public right-of-way, so Mr. Ed
Kant suggested that we should come here and make a request and do
the proper procedure.
And we'd like to know also if possibly, if we do create a minipark
setting, of course there will be trash. So if the county would provide
either, you know, a container-- and we would-- you know, we would
help out as far as picking up the litter and so forth, either if they would
provide a, you know, garbage can that would be from the county, or if
not, we could -- you know, we could do that as well. But we'd like to
donate the tables and provide the seating there. And that's about it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We can't actually vote on it today, but we
can vote to bring it back for discussion. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You saying these were cement
tables and they were going to be on your property?
MS. FLYNN: Correct, yes. It would be -- we don't have them,
but we'd like -- we have them ordered and we'd like to have them
installed, and it would be the cement round tables.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And you said that -- is this on your
27
April 13, 2004
property or is this on the right-of-way?
MS. FLYNN: It's on public right-of-way. That's why we're here
to request permission to do so.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think there's some thought
down there of putting a sidewalk in that general area, my --
MS. FLYNN: There already is a sidewalk. Do you have the
sketch that I provided?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I've got a -- basically a
sketch here, but I don't understand where you presently have a
sidewalk there --
MS. FLYNN: There is a -- yeah --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- public sidewalk.
MS. FLYNN: -- there is a sidewalk that goes all the way to the
end of Vanderbilt Beach Road and ends at Gulfshore Drive.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. FLYNN: And the area that we're requesting would be from
that sidewalk and heading north into the grass area, and it stops at the
bushes, which is, you know, on the perimeter of the property, but the
whole grass area is public right-of-way. And Mr. Ed Kant came over
and assessed the whole area.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. FLYNN: Do you want me to show you?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Uh --
MS. FLYNN: The round dots there would be like where we
would propose to put the tables at.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I got ya now. I understand
now where you're coming from on the diagram. I didn't really --
wasn't really clear there. Okay. MS. FLYNN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So show us -- oh, I see. Okay.
MS. FLYNN: This is Gulfshore Drive and Vanderbilt Beach
Road, and this is all grass area, which is all public right-of-way, so
28
April 13, 2004
we'd like to put the four tables as the circles indicate there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to support whatever
Commissioner Halas wants to do, since it's his district, but my
recommendations would be to approach the Beautification Advisory
Board, a group of citizens there --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There's an MSTU up there, and I
would approach them.
MS. FLYNN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I think that's the best way to
handle this. And they could give you some guidance. I --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if we have a staff liaison for
the MSTU, put you in contact with the advisory board, and let it come
up through that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that's the best way, that way
we won't have a conflict there, because my understanding, the MSTU
in Vanderbilt Beach area is going through a process right now where
they're working with WilsonMiller, I believe, and I think that in
conjunction with what you want to do here, would probably be a
better approach to addressing this, and I think they'll assist you in that.
MS. FLYNN: Okay. So if we do that, then does that mean we
don't have to come back and ask for permission as far as -- how does
the right-of-way situation get handled?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think if you work with the
liaison people or the MSTU, they also --
MR. MUDD: Ms. Flagg's right there against the wall.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, and that's Diane Flagg right
back there, and she's the lady that you need talk to.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do you need -- do you have a comment,
Diane? Is there -- maybe -- no? You can help her along?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. And what they'll do is, they
work in conjunction with the transportation department, so I think they
29
April 13, 2004
can clarify -- clear that up for you.
MS. FLYNN: Okay. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? Hold on just one
minute. Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I don't.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My question's been answered.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. So at this point in time,
Commissioner Halas, your recommendation is not to bring it back --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- but to have the petitioner work with the
COMMISSIONER HALAS: MSTU up there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- Vanderbilt MSTU and with our
transportation department, Diane Flagg, and then if they need our
approval, then to come back--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that's --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- the course of action.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, let me help just a little bit to clarify
it. We'll go through the MSTU. If the MSTU basically said this is a
good deal, they'll accept the donation and they want to come in the
right-of-way, based on any further guidance, we'll come back with an
agenda item for approval to put it in the right-of-way, okay, so that we
don't have to go through the petition process -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, that's good.
MR. MUDD: This way we'll know that the whole community's
behind it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
30
April 13, 2004
MR. MUDD: And then we're in good shape.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you so much for
coming forward and offering this -- the seating.
MS. FLYNN: It's Mari Vesci. That's her place. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY DOUGLAS WILCOX TO
DISCUSS THE PUBLIC VEHICLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
ORDINANCE - PETITIONER ADVISED TO WORK WITH THE
PUBLIC VEHICLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGARDING THIS
ISSIIE
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Move on --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we have 6(A), we have Mr.
Wilcox.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, he's here.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Doug Wilcox has -- must have been problems
with the electricity or whatnot, but that's public petition request by
Douglas Wilcox to discuss the Public Vehicle Advisory Committee
Ordinance, 6(A).
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. WILCOX: Hi. Sorry -- slow in arriving. We had to park in
Marco this morning.
Basically I wanted to bring to your attention some of the
problems that we in the taxi community have been having with the
PVAC and with code enforcement.
It seems that what's been said up there is something between to
prevent -- a protectionist ordinance and some kind of a bureaucratic
31
April 13, 2004
gauntlet as a barrier to enter into the marketplace. And I don't think it
needs to be that way and I don't think the public interest is served by
that.
What am I talking about? You know, we've had some meetings,
you know, individuals who run the taxi companies and so forth. And
it came to my attention just very recently last week that, for example,
these permits renewing at end of January is a completely arbitrary
date.
Initially when 95-66 was put together -- there's a story that goes
with that as well -- they were working on it and working on it,
working on it and so forth, and finally when they got it into a form
that was ready to be passed by the commissioners and so forth, at that
point they said, well, when can we get this in? And January just
happened to pop up.
Now, those of us who run airport service -- and you know
January is high season here, high tourist season -- January, we don't
have time to breathe, and yet the ordinance requires that we come in in
January, cease operations and run all of these vehicles through code
enforcement to put a sticker -- so that the person from code
enforcement can physically attach the sticker to the vehicle.
A couple of years ago we failed to pick up two passengers.
Basically I was down there dealing with code enforcement rather than
in my office dispatching, and two passengers didn't get picked up,
didn't get on their flights, and had to go out the following day. And
you know when you buy tickets a couple months ahead, you might get
179, $180 fare to go up to Ohio or wherever. But if you have to go
out tomorrow, those $179 fares are all gone. They're 600 a seat.
Now, I mean, just off the top of-- just off the top of the list, is
there any reason, can anybody cite any reason why these have to be
done January as opposed to, say, June or July when we're all sitting
around, you know, looking for things to do?
But, you know, it comes back to a larger point, which is, why are
32
April 13, 2004
these necessary in the first place? You know, those of us who do
airport service are permitted by the airport. And just in a way of
contrast, the Collier ordinance requires 100/300 in insurance coverage.
The airport requires a half a million. Aaron Best Value, in fact,
carries a million and a half.
So we're operating at a level so far and beyond, you know, the
standards requested by the Collier ordinance.
Initially when this -- when this draft ordinance was being kicked
around, we came in and asked for an exemption on that basis, as Lee
County exempted the airport companies on that basis. We're already
held to higher standards by the Port Authority.
Another thing is the driver background checks. These drivers
that work for the airport companies are already background checked
by the FBI through, you know, FAA at the airport. So basically what
we're doing here is redundant.
It seems this whole thing -- my understanding of the history of
the ordinance goes something like this: In Fort Myers, Phil Griffin,
Blue Bird Taxi, got a protectionist ordinance in the City of Fort
Myers. It wasn't long after that a Collier company sent a passenger in
a car to Lee Memorial Hospital's -- you know, paid a visit on a patient,
and then continue on to the airport.
Well, while the cab was waiting in front of Lee Memorial
Hospital, one of the Blue Bird drivers saw him and dropped a dime on
him. The police came and arrested the driver, towed the car, and
damaged it, and there were fines and everything else for that--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Wilcox?
MR. WILCOX: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: I don't mean to interrupt you,
but what do you want us to do?
MR. WILCOX: Well, we got to -- I would like you to look at
this whole situation. What's happening here -- forgive me -- it's a
spitting contest over the fence between essentially two companies, and
33
April 13, 2004
the rest of us have been dragged into it.
There was -- we were cited for picking up a passenger without a
Collier sticker at LaPlaya in November. The judge looked at the
ordinance, 142-28, subparagraph B. Now that says that if these
vehicles are permitted by any agency of any government to pick up
passengers, then they are exempt from all provisions under the Collier
County ordinance.
I understand that this is regarded by code enforcement and Tom
Palmer as a loophole, as a mistake, and they're going to ask you to
correct it to close that. I'd ask you not to do that.
Basically, if the -- if the county gets involved in the process
between the citizens and the taxi operators and makes it convoluted,
what happens is people don't get picked up and they don't get on their
flights. I don't think that's in the public interest, and I don't think the
county should be in that game, should be in that business.
Recognize, please, that we are operating way far above and
beyond any of the meager standards of the ordinance and leave that
alone. Let us continue to pick up passengers in Collier County on our
airport stickers.
Are there any questions or -- I believe I sent an email to each of
you outlining some of the mistreatment and so forth that I and my
drivers have suffered at code enforcement. Did you all see that?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioners, your pleasure?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, this item will be coming
up several times, and we have a tendency to review on a regular basis.
At that point in time, I'd rather deal with it rather than drag everything
forward. I don't see an emergency here where we need immediate
action. I agree that we overregulate the industry, but I think the time
to deal with it is when it comes before us during the normal cycle.
MR. WILCOX: Let me just say this in closing. You know, if
there was a rash of uninsured taxi crashes leaving people injured or
dead, I could understand there'd be a public outcry and a mandate to
34
April 13, 2004
do something. But people are calling the commissioner's offices every
day complaining about being undercharged or overcharged, I don't
think that's happening.
Right now, from this area I think Classic Cab is on the low end of
things of $38 to the airport. On the high end of things would be Carey
Transportation at a hundred and a quarter from the Tiburon. So there
is a wide range of fares available. Anybody who can dial a phone can
find the equipment, the price, and the level of service that they want in
about five minutes.
There is no public mandate for the government to interject itself
into the process. This taxi industry is something -- it's a classic
example of where the marketplace can take care of itself.
Now there are people that have to have a brand new Lincoln.
Carey Transportation provides that, also Naples Transportation and
Tours. There are fixed income seniors and welfare moms that need
that 50-cent-a-mile transportation offered by Classic and some others.
They fill a necessary market niche.
I'm not necessarily worried about it. We're priced right in the fat
part of the bell curve, and my passengers won't ride in those
50-cent-a-mile cars. The marketplace can take care of this. It doesn't
require code enforcement.
Basically that's what I came to tell you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What I think I hear is certain
elements of the ordinance is broken. I tend to agree that it is an
unreasonable request to ask an inspection at the height of the season. I
think it's a reasonable request, to what you're asking, is to perform that
off season, and I hope that we can do that.
MR. WILCOX: Let me --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I heard that.
MR. WILCOX: Let me give you--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I heard it.
35
April 13, 2004
MR. WILCOX: -- some information. The airport inspects our
vehicles every month. You're looking at for a once-a-year snapshot of
a car. I require our drivers to inspect the vehicles after every trip.
That's 10 times a day. Now, you know--
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: I think I also heard that we got
duplicate government, and maybe it is that we can take a look at -- to
see how that -- not all cab companies go to the regional airport, so
maybe there's something that we can do to --
MR. WILCOX: Something I think that the --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Just a minute, sir.
MR. WILCOX: Sure.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Please. Can our staff address
Commissioner Henning's comments, or do you want to arrange some
type of a meeting to be discussing this or bring this back, or how do
you want to handle it?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think what we need to do here is
just --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, Michelle -- and you're next. I need to
call on you, but could I have an answer?
MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, code
development director. My department is the one responsible for the
administration of the Public Vehicle Advisory Committee and the
taxicab industries.
And we have -- I've been taking notes or listening to what is
being voiced here. There's been discussions on an annual basis as to
what needs to be changed or modified. Some of the items that have --
Mr. Wilcox is bringing up have been brought up to the committee in
the past, some of them have been considered.
The two that Commissioner Henning voiced, changing the
schedule for the renewal period was discussed, and it was determined
that it was more appropriate to leave it as it is just because in the
summer months a lot of the companies don't have all of their drivers
36
April 13, 2004
readily available as well. But, again, these are things that we can
bring up to the committee for reconsideration. We do have a new
committee right now, so that's something we can look into.
And then the other item the commissioner brought up with
respect to duplication of efforts, we feel that if a company such as Mr.
Wilcox's, exceeding what our requirements are, they would make -- it
would make it easy for them to meet the county's requirements.
I think not all the companies are at the same level as he's
mentioned today. So we need to treat everyone the same, and
hopefully have everybody at an equally high standard so that the
public is protected.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Before you leave, you're working
with our-- one of the attorneys -- MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- Tom Palmer in regards to this?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So it's going to come back before
us at some point in time; is that correct.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes. He mentioned--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I think we can address it at
that time.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. He mentioned that there was a loophole
in the ordinance. The particular regulation that he was referring to is
not a loophole. It was, in the opinion of Mr. Palmer, a
misinterpretation. And we have information from the other
jurisdictions that clarifies that they have no jurisdiction over what
those companies operate in Collier County. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. WILCOX: Commissioners, I think what most of the people
in the taxiing industry are looking for is the two-county permitting.
37
April 13, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. WILCOX: You know, and that makes --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I would ask you that as long as this
is moving forward and they're talking about it, I would suggest that
you talk with Michelle, see when that's going to be brought up again
before PVAC. And I don't think there's any need for us to bring this
back while they're working that out amongst themselves.
MS. ARNOLD: Right. Out meetings are every -- the first
Monday of each month.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Very good, sir. And thank you,
Mr. Wilcox.
MR. WILCOX: Thank you.
Item #8C
ORDINANCE 2004-23: PETITION RZ-2003-AR-3973 AMERISITE
LLC, REPRESENTED BY TERRANCE KEPPLE OF KEPPLE
ENGINEERING, INC., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM THE
"A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT TO THE "C-
3" ZONING DISTRICT, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
COLLIER BOULEVARD (EAST SIDE) ¼ MILE NORTH OF
RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD, IN SECTION 14,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 9.24 ACRES-ADOPTED W/CCPC
STIPI H~ATIONS
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Moving on to 8(C), I believe it is.
MR. MUDD: 8(C). This item requires that all participants be
sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission
members.
It's petition RZ-2003-AR-3973, Amerisite LLC, represented by
Terrance Kepple of Kepple Engineering, Inc., requesting a rezone
38
April 13, 2004
from the "A" Rural Agricultural Zoning District to the C-3 Zoning
District for property located at Collier Boulevard, east side,
one-quarter mile north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road in section 14,
township 50 south, range 26 east, Collier County, Florida consisting of
9.24 acres.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. And Mr. Kepple?
Oh, do we have to swear this (sic) in? I'm so sorry. Excuse me,
please. Could you swear in --
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: This is everybody that's going to speak on
this subject?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And do we have any disclosures by board
members?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: None.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: None.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: None.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: None.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Shakes head.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: None.
Okay, very good.
MR. KF. PPLE: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good morning.
MR. KEPPLE: For the record, Terrance Kepple, representing the
petitioner this morning. My presentation will be fairly brief.
The project is approximately a 9.2-acre parcel located on the east
side of 9 -- Collier Boulevard, a quarter mile north of Rattlesnake
Hammock Road.
We're requesting a rezone to C-3 from the existing agricultural
zoning on the property at this time.
The petitioner also owns the -- immediately to the south -- two
39
April 13, 2004
approximately five-acre parcels to the south. The property to the
north is zoned ag. and is vacant. To the east is also zoned agricultural,
is vacant, and on the east side of this site, there's approximately a
170-foot wide FPL easement.
Our original petition that we submitted did request a rezone to
C-5, which is the same as the property located to the south. The
petitioner wanted to extend a plan for a ministorage onto this site as
well as his plans for the property to the south.
After discussions with staff and their review, the staff determined
that we could not request a rezone to C-5. There was some options of
coming back with a petition to C-4 with a conditional use for a
ministorage on it. Rather than take the additional time to do that, I
talked to my client, and we decided to proceed with a C-3 zoning at
this time.
The access to this site will be via interconnection to the south and
then onto Collier Boulevard. This site itself will not have a direct
access to Collier Boulevard, as there's a current median opening on 9
-- I call it 951 still -- Collier Boulevard on-- in front of the five acres
immediately to the south.
We will provide interconnections to the properties also to the
north, and, if necessary, to the east, although that's -- the east with the
FPL is probably not likely to ever occur.
Again, we're requesting a rezone to C-3 at this time. That's the
end of my presentation, if you have any questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Short, sweet, and simple.
MR. KEPPLE: I like them that way.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Staff?.
MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, my name is
Kay Deselem. I'm a principal planner with the department of zoning
and land development review.
And you have the staff report in the Executive Summary as part
of your packet. Staff is recommending that the C-3 request be found
40
April 13, 2004
consistent with the Growth Management Plan, and we are
recommending approval of the petition, and you do have the added
stipulation from the Collier County Planning Commission in the
ordinance that you have in front of you.
I'm here to answer any questions if you have them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have -- do we have any speakers
on this subject?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, very good.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So the stipulations that were
proposed by the Planning Commission are going to be incorporated in
this ordinance, and that's going to be all tied together; is that correct?
MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's if the Board of
Commissioners agree to those stipulations or put that into the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: -- recommendations, the motion.
And the whole premise of the Planning Commission is to try to
interconnect those parcels.
MS. DESELEM: Yes. Plus, if I may, the applicant made the
commitment to the neighbors at the neighborhood information
meeting that this particular site would have no direct access. And
recognizing that commitment, the Collier County Planning
Commission did add that into the stipulations for the resolution.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. No direct access to?
MS. DESELEM: 951.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. DESELEM: From this site, they are to interconnect the
41
April 13, 2004
parcels that are also owned by the petitioner to the south.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: To the south.
MS. DESELEM: And Terry has committed to that on the record
just before I spoke.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Deselem, is there any way
that we can encourage further connections to the north to, say, Lord's
Way? It would be great if we could have -- try to establish some kind
of a collector system with all these different parcels.
MS. DESELEM: I did hear Terry's testimony, and he did state
on the record that -- just now that he would provide access to the
north, however, the north site doesn't directly connect to Lord's Way --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MS. DESELEM: -- and those particular petitions would be
addressed on their own merit. We can't actually add conditions on
parcels of land that aren't included in this petition.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And these three parcels are
made up of 15,000 -- no, 15 acres, I think?
MS. DESELEM: I think there may be like 10 -- three 1 O-acre
tracts that separate this particular--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So like 30.
MS. DESELEM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would just like to clarify
the stipulation. We're stipulating that there not be direct access from
this particular parcel to 951, but the real intent is to make sure that all
three parcels owned by this particular owner would share a single
access point.
Now, I understand what you just said, that we cannot apply a
stipulation to property that is not part of this petition. Is there any way
that can be phrased though to include all of the property that is
contiguous to this property that's owned by the same owner?
42
April 13, 2004
MS. DESELEM: I don't believe there's any way you could do
that, because no matter how you phrased it, it would still affect
properties that aren't part of this petition. The only thing you can do
in this case is to require this particular property to interconnect.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. The other two parcels of
property, have they been rezoned already and has something been
approved by the planning department or by the Collier County
Commissioners?
MS. DESELEM: They have been previously rezoned. As far as
I'm aware, there has been no Site Development Plan submitted for
approval or review.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And at that point in time, if the
staff wished, the staff could require that all those two parcels -- that
those two parcels would-- would share a common entrance; is that
correct?
MS. DESELEM: Only in compliance with the standards that we
have in the regulations that are already in effect as far as access
management standards that do require some separation distance
between different access points on a main road, and that would be
handled through the Site Development Plan process.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, do those standards really
permit separate access points by those other two parcels?
MS. DESELEM: In essence, they don't encourage single parcels
to have access that would be that close; however, since all the parcels
are separate parcels, there is some -- and I can refer this to the County
Attorney's Office-- but every access is entitled to have reasonable --
every parcel is entitled to have reasonable access to the roadway
system, so there's some limits to how we can limit that access.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. You held community
meetings on this, advertised community meetings, and at the time you
43
April 13, 2004
did, it was advertised as the more intense use, C-5. How many people
showed up for that meeting?
MS. DESELEM: Give me a moment, and I'll look at the staff
report, because it does have that information. I don't remember off the
top of my head.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Two.
MS. DESELEM: I'm hearing two.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's what I thought I read.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. That's what I did read, and
I should have just stated that. Two people -- MS. DESELEM: Yes, two.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- showed up for the meeting,
and they actually weren't even objecting to the C-5, which is a much
more intense use. So now we're at C-3, and there is no speakers today
to speak on this subject?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In that case it seems like it's
something that's compatible with the 951 corridor, and I'll make a
motion for approval provided we have the stipulation about the
connection being shared for 951 as so stated.
I think that's a prerequisite. The only -- one question I have,
though, before I finalize that motion. At what point in time does this
meet with 951 improvements? Is there any problem in that particular
corridor that's anticipated when this is built as far as the road as it
exists today?
MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry. I don't exactly understand your
question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He wants to know when it's
going to be improved.
MS. DESELEM: When 951 is going to be improved?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. Is this going to be a
44
April 13, 2004
negative impact on 951 until that time that it is improved again?
MS. DESELEM: I don't believe so. Transportation staff has
reviewed the petition and has determined that it's not going to be a
significant impact to 951.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Also, too, when the time does
come for construction, if-- well, checkbook concurrency would kick
in now, that's correct. We'd be considering this now so any other
impacts that happen on this particular corridor we would be able to
react through checkbook concurrency to deny someone if the road
became insufficient to the point where it was no longer passible. But
in any case, I do -- I am making that motion --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion as long
as the motion maker includes the recommendations by the Planning
Commission.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I so do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Let me just stop everybody here,
because I need to close the public hearing if we've got a motion on the
floor.
Okay. At this point in time I will close the public hearing.
Excuse me, Commissioner Halas. I didn't mean to cut you off.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, that's okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's the second time I did that today.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just to make sure we're all on the
same page here, because I think there's a little bit of conflict here. It's
-- the CCPC, the Planning Commission, added a stipulation that
prohibits this parcel from using County Road 51 (sic) for direct access,
okay? That's what's in the motion or should be in the motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's what the Planning
Commission recommended.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Because we kept talking
about concurrency on 951, but they're not to have access to 951 at this
45
April 13, 2004
point in time; am I right?
MS. DESELEM: That's true.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. DESELEM: Their access at 951 will be through an adjacent
tract that will go to 951, because they have no other road frontage.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So -- and then it also says
that the proposed site plan depicted one access onto 951 to serve all
three tracts. Is -- have we got a conflict here?
MR. MUDD: No. Commissioner, it's basically saying that the
two tracts that are down south, they'll access down south, and there's a
cut that has a median opening down there, and that's where they'll
come onto 951, but there won't be separate entries for each one of
these tracts.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And what we really want to do on 951 -- because
someday it will be six-laned in its entirety, is to try to make sure that
our access points are smart and that --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
MR. MUDD: -- everybody isn't trying to get on there. And then,
you know, when everybody does, everybody wants a light, because
then they find it's difficult to get down and have to make a U-turn or
whatever, across three lanes of traffic.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. We just got a little bit off
the track here, but I understand, and I go along with the motion so
long as the recommendations by the Planning Commission are also
inserted in that motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not going to spend much time
on this, but just for future planning purposes, it seems to me that
trying to put an interconnect on the western side of that property near
951 is not a good idea. It's probably not going to be feasible to try to
put interconnects in the middle of that property, particularly if they
46
April 13, 2004
want to develop it.
But their property line's at the back. It seems to me that some
right-of-way back there for an access or loop road for all of those
parcels would serve a very, very good purpose. And if we were to
require that some of that property be set aside by the way these
property owners as we -- as they come before the staff and Board of
County Commissioners, it seems to me that we could have a good
access road located some distance away from 951 so that we could
expand 951 further if we wished without destroying any access
interlinks.
So it just makes good planning sense to me to start looking at
where those access roads are going to be and start making some plans
to reserve some space on the eastern side of all those small lots that
could serve the purpose of a north/south access road.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Boy, I totally agree, that one thing we've
been focusing on heavily in the last couple years is more responsible
traffic flow. Interconnectivity is a strong point with us; of course,
concurrency.
So I would hope that our transportation people can work with the
property owner so that all of these -- and I'm just being redundant
now, so I won't belabor it -- all of these properties can interconnect.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe we ought to address that
now. Maybe there is a possible easement on the back of the property,
and I think we're all on the same page here -- is to try to establish that
and try to have minimum accesses on Collier Boulevard.
MR. KEPPLE: If I may, again, Terrance Kepple. The parcel
outlined in red is the parcel in question today. The parcel to the south
of it is the two five-acre tracts.
As you can see, we've proposed an interconnection north/south.
It's approximately 200 feet east of 951, and then the one connection to
951.
47
April 13, 2004
For this site that makes most sense because it's zoned
commercial. It would allow development of, if you would, out parcels
or separate tracts of land.
As far as a connecting road on the east side, the problem with
these parcels and all the parcels immediately adjacent to 951 is there's
an existing 170-foot FPL easement running north and south. The
logical place would be all the way to the east side of this property so
that it would serve not only this property, but the property to the east.
The only place we could locate an easement on this property
would be 170 feet from our east property line. That would not serve
properties to the east. The other option is, or the other question is, the
depth of this property. It's approximately 1,300 feet deep. That
distance from 951 may not be the best location to locate the
north/south road.
Where we've shown it in our north/south direction is -- makes the
most logical sense to connect to. The property to the north that's
undeveloped will probably become residential, so you don't have a
commercial development dumping into the middle of a residential
development. It will be out towards 951 in more of an area that they
would make either more intense by higher density or maybe leave a
buffer area between it and 951.
As far as the property to the south, I believe it's still zoned
agricultural, but it will eventually become C-5, or commercial zoning,
I'm sure. And where that parcel will have its accesses is anybody's
guess at this point, but where we've shown the north/south connection
gives them a good access point to the median opening onto 951.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Mr. Kepple, how about if we hear
from transportation--
MR. KEPPLE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- and maybe they could give us some
advice.
MR. KEPPLE: Sure.
48
April 13, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have Norm Feder here.
They've been -- they've all been consulting with one another back
there. Thank you.
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, transportation
administrator. Ideally, as the board has already identified, you would
like to try and make sure that all three properties have an access point
of north/south, again, as far as away from Rattlesnake Hammock as it
could be. Two hundred feet is very, very close when you look at that
future intersection with 951 and future growth in the area.
If they're able to establish a north/south through their, what
would be their easternmost limits, that would service all three, it
would provide service for more development that may or may not
occur further to the east, and would pull them as far as they can away
from the intersection of 951 and Rattlesnake Hammock. So that
would be the ideal.
Not knowing the topography and a couple of the other issues, we
should be striving to move in that direction, making sure that all three,
as you point out, are connected with the north/south ideally as far to
the east from 951 as possible, and parallel to 951, serving all three
properties and other properties in the future.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think what we're trying to get
at, and Commissioner Coyle emphasized is, for all those properties,
not just those three.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The problem is, we don't know
how those properties are laid out to the north and south of these three
parcels. So maybe within the motion, if we can establish, directing
our staff and the petitioner the landowner will work with, trying to
establish that through looking at the other properties.
MR. FEDER: And I believe what you're requesting of us would
be that we try to seek something that, one, services not only all three,
49
April 13, 2004
but others in the area, and as far to the east as is practical. You keep it
away from the intersection of 951 and Rattlesnake Hammock.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd be willing to include it in the
motion if we -- if that sounds like it encompasses what we're trying to
get to. I agree with you about the fact that we do want everybody
sharing the same entrance and exit. To the east would be the most
advantageous place to be if you can get the cooperation of everyone.
Of course, once again, too, you won't get the cooperation unless you
squeeze everybody a little bit.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And do I -- the second also --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I want to --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hate to question my own
motion. But in this case here what we're saying basically is that we're
approving this, but we're telling them to go back and look at the back
side; is that what we're trying to say? Or do we just want to go ahead
and remove the front portion as is and we make that an absolute
requirement?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I don't -- Commissioner, I
don't -- I don't think we have enough information to make any
requirements. I think what I hear everybody saying on the board is
that we want to try to connect all these properties as -- further to the
east, if possible.
MS. DESELEM: If I may interject. For the record, Kay
Deselem. This site plan he's showing you is information only.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MS. DESELEM: It's not part of the petition, he's not tied to that
site plan. So if you make changes to the ordinance that require a
different location for the access, it's not going to affect this petition.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand. Well, I'll tell you
what, I would like to amend my motion that the access be through --
interconnecting to the east.
50
April 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: If possible.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, let's think about it for a
minute. If we say if possible, it's probably not going to happen.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Uh-huh.
MS. DESELEM: My guess would be, who determines if it's
possible; is it staff or is it the applicant --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think it's --
MS. DESELEM: -- what's the criteria?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- the commission that
determines if it's possible.
I'd change my motion to read that the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It be to the east.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Included in the motion and
second.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd just like to make one
observation, that the existence of the FP&L easement on the east
might very well make it easier to do that. As we have already
determined in considerations of extensions of Livingston Road, it is
possible to use an FPL easement for the extension of a road.
So we could talk with FPL and see if that's possible so that
landowners don't lose part of their property for the development.
But the real problem here is that doing that on the west or east
side of this particular property doesn't accomplish the overall goal
unless we do it for all of the properties along -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- this area, not just these three
properties. So I would -- my recommendation was made not to
interfere in the ability of this property to develop, but to provide
planning guidance to the staff to look at all of the properties along 951
to see if we could find an access road on the eastern side of these
51
April 13, 2004
properties which would service them all.
And I would be somewhat reluctant to try to hold this particular
property up while waiting our determination whether or not the
properties to the north and the south would ultimately cooperate.
But nevertheless, the intent, I think, is relatively clear that we
approve this particular petition, the rezone, that we do not approve a
separate access for this particular parcel of property, and that the staff
pursue the possibility of an access road for all properties in this area
on the eastern boundary of those properties, and that would be my
desire, and I think that's sort of the intent of the motion, I believe.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I think you've clearly stated it.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I see where you're coming --
also, too, another point that we need to look at is the fact that, does it
really matter if the interconnected road is the east or the center or the
west, just as long as it's interconnected and we have everything
coming out at one point. I think that's probably the big thing. Why
would the east be the most advantageous position -- place to be to put
this road?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, because there's property
further to the east of this property that needs access somehow. Rather
than them coming out in some different manner, why not use the same
-- I don't know if somebody can --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Collector road.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, collector road which will be
along the eastern boundary of all of those properties.
Orient it north and south. And then if you can just point out all
of the properties. Can you take that, Jim, and just trace that FPL
easement on the eastern side of the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Uh-huh, you can see it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Right through there. Now,
you see, you've got properties to the right and properties to the left.
52
April 13, 2004
And if it were placed there, you can get a lot of access from all those
properties onto that same road, and take them out to the collector road
so it will go out to 951, which will make things a lot easier for
everybody, I believe.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: More efficient, wow.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I agree.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so that's why I think it would
be good on the eastern boundary, if it's possible, and if we can work
out a deal with FPL to put a road there on an easement that already
exists, it's not taking any more property away from landowners. So it
could be a good solution. And I'll leave that up to staff to determine,
because I don't have the ability to make those determinations right
now.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I see what you're saying,
Commissioner Coyle, and I do agree with you. So we're going to
leave the motion as is.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: The motion as is?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to have the county
attorney or the county manager read it back.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I was just going to ask him to try and
reread our motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just to make sure we understand
where we are.
MR. WEIGEL: The testing starts early today.
The motion is to approve the rezone, finding it in compliance
with the county's Growth Management Plan, adopting the -- and
adopting the stipulations of the Planning Commission and also
directing staff, as an aside, to work with this petitioner on this parcel
and petitioners at other parcels toward an alignment and use of a
corridor to the east, if possible. But in any event, that staff be working
in a coordinated way with all these properties so that we reduce the
53
April 13, 2004
duplications of access to 951.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I thought -- I thought we said that we
wanted staff to work with the petitioner to have one access road rather
than reduce, one access road onto 951 that would -- that would be
accessible to all of the surrounding properties and --
MR. WEIGEL: That is correct. I think that's in the Planning
Commission's stipulation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that we would -- we would prefer it
to be on the eastern side of the property. Is that -- is that-- MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- what we have in this motion?
MR. WEIGEL: That's fine if you prefer. The rezone is not
contingent on it being on the east side of the property because the
discussion that you have had indicates that staff will have to look at
more than petitioner's property to determine the feasibility of
accessing 951 through a singular route to the far east and that the staff
is going to be utilizing, to the extent possible, concepts such as the
FP&L easement to achieve this -- singular access points from many
parcels, not just this one.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we got ourselves in a box
here --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- what we have here, because what
Commissioner Coyle is stating is a great idea --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, he's --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- but today we're only addressing
these three pieces of property, and to try to -- it would be nice if we
could force the petitioner to look at this -- the possibility of this
easement to the east on this FPL property, but right now, our hands are
tied because he doesn't have any way to find out if that's feasible, and
we don't know if the transportation-- where we are with the
54
April 13, 2004
transportation department. I think it's a great idea, but the
transportation department's going to have to do an in-depth study and
work with FPL.
So right now what we have is, what are we going to do with these
three properties and how are we going to address it so that the person
can go ahead and start to develop. I think what we need to do is make
some clarification in the motion that at the time when this property to
the east becomes available, then he has to close up the entrance or the
exit egress here to 951.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Kay Deselem?
MS. DESELEM: Yes, if I may. For the record again, Kay
Deselem. I might offer a couple suggestions to get you to where you
seem to want to go.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good.
MS. DESELEM: There is a portion of the Land Development
Code that requires interconnections for adjacent parcels. It's not
specific, like you would like it to have, but it does state that it's
encouraged, and if you require this particular petitioner to show his
access for interconnection at a certain location, the next guy coming
along would, for the most part, need to align with that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great.
MS. DESELEM: If he gets his Site Development Plan approved
with the access shown as conditioned and stipulated in your ordinance,
then the next guy has to tie into that, and that could go along. It would
have an effect to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: East.
MS. DESELEM: -- the north and the south of this tract, so that
does give you some way to go. And if you made it subject to final
approval and review by transportation staff through the Site
Development Plan or through platting, that gives you some leeway as
to the finality of it and gives transportation staff an opportunity to
review it in more detail.
55
April 13, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. The presumption would
be, is that the next property to come online would be the property
immediately to his north or south. But if there's a property a couple
removed or one lot removed, now you have the problem of an
interconnect again with the property between there that isn't at that
point where they're ready to do this, so then we're right back to the
same situation we're at at the moment.
MS. DESELEM: I'm kind of looking at it from the point of view
that those tracts are zoned ag., and there's a very good possibility that
they're going to have to be rezoned in order to do anything --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I'm sure. I'm sure they will.
But the whole presumption, what you just brought up was, is that the
properties that are going to come available are going to become
available in succession going east and -- or north and south. It's not
allowing for the fact that you may skip all the way to the end and have
maybe a, you know, quarter of a mile or so between the two lots and
you can't interconnect, once again, lots that aren't at that point in their
development where they want to do that.
I'll be honest with you, after listening to Commissioner Halas, I
don't know if that's a bad idea to require at the time that they have the
-- they develop the alternate route in the back--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Close up the other one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- that they -- yeah. Because one
of the bad parts about this is, what, 200 feet away, I guess it was, from
the Pine Ridge -- or not Pine Ridge -- Rattlesnake Hammock, was it?
It was closer than Norm wanted to see.
MR. MUDD: Rattlesnake Hammock is right here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And this would be --
MR. MUDD: You're talking about the 951 exit would be --
would be right there.
56
April 13, 2004
MR. KEPPLE: If I may, for a second. The median opening that
we're contemplating using on the parcel immediately to the south is a
quarter mile from Rattlesnake Hammock Road along Collier
Boulevard. It directly aligns with the access across the street that goes
in and serves a shopping center and those commercial parcels across
the street. That's a logical place for us to put our entrance onto 951,
and-- which is where we've aligned it.
Another note, we are only rezoning the one parcel at this time,
not the three of them, just for clarification.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand that.
MR. KEPPLE: The five-acre parcel farthest to the south that my
client also owns, I did not handle that rezone. But during the rezoning
process, the commission five, six years ago put a stipulation that there
would be no development on the east 400 feet of it, no buildings, no
parking lot, no roads on the east 400 feet, so it -- we can use it for
water management, native vegetation, anything of that nature, which
is why that one site plan I had showed a retention area in that area.
But the stipulation was that there would be no development, no
parking or buildings on that site.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I see. In other words, the roads
that you have in your present drawing here are open ended at the end
of your property, and you're allowing for interconnectivity at that
point?
MR. KEPPLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have Norm Feder, then we
have Commissioner Coyle, and then Commissioner Halas, as we beat
this subject to death.
MR. FEDER: I'll try not to do too much more of that,
Commissioner.
What I just heard was that the proposal is an access point to 951 a
quarter mile north of Rattlesnake Hammock. I need to remind the
board that we established 951 as a controlled access facility, and that's
57
April 13, 2004
why what I hoped we were discussing was something that made it
clear, we're not looking for an access point a quarter mile north of
Rattlesnake Hammock onto 951, but rather some effort at joint access
that would join up to Rattlesnake Hammock further to the east than
I'm being shown here, because then you have all that traffic and the
problems at the intersection. But, again, as far east as it can.
I can't speak to what was agreed to with the prior property and
why we're going to not utilize the eastern portion. As I said, we'd
have to look at what our options are as the board directed.
But, again, I want to remind you that we'd have a real concern
about a proposal for a major access point one-quarter mile north of
Rattlesnake Hammock or any access point to 951 rather than access
finding its way to Rattlesnake Hammock further to the east of 951.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to clarify something, and
then I'll make a final statement on this. This site plan has not been
approved, has it?
MS. DESELEM: It's not a part of the petition.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not a part of the petition.
MS. DESELEM: Ifs information only.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It hasn't been approved. It's what
they would like to have.
I would like to point out that -- that the existence of this
particular access to 951 doesn't serve any other property owners to the
east or to the north or south other than this one property owner.
They've agreed to put an access -- an interconnect at the north and
south ends of their property, but suppose those interconnects do not
properly align with those property owners' needs for site planning,
then we've got some problems.
What we need to do is exactly what we've been talking about all
along, is to try to make sure we can interlink all of the properties in
this area without having to have a lot of entrances off 951.
58
April 13, 2004
And so by approving this rezone and requiring interlinks to the
north and south, we're not approving this particular site plan, and that
shouldn't concern us too much. And by saying to the staff, we would
like to provide guidance to you to try to find some way to interlink on
the eastern part of these properties is general enough to give the staff a
chance to determine what is reasonable and what is not reasonable.
But I really do not want to force this property owner or other
property owners into a position where they will develop an access
point to 951 and spend the money to do it, and then have to turn
around and tear it up, close it down, and develop another access point
somewhere else. That's why it's essential that the staff get involved in
the planning as quickly as possible, to see if there's a way to solve the
problem, and then let the staff come to us with solutions rather than us
trying to design it right now.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Coyle covered all
the subjects that I was going to talk about, so -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- I'm in total agreement with what
he said.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So would you like to restate the motion
for us?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The petition for rezone is approved
with the stipulations by the CCPC. The petitioner will provide
interlinks with property to the north and south, interconnects to the
properties north and south, and that the -- that we're providing
guidance to the staff to work with this property owner and all property
owners to try to find a way to interconnect those properties along the
eastern boundary.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Through a collector system?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: For one access point onto --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Through a collector, if that's
59
April 13, 2004
necessary, if that's what you want to call it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, yeah, because the
language in the Land Development Code is just an interconnect.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what we want to do is to
have it to say collector.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Collect all the -- yeah, yeah.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And just with one exit onto 951 as an
access point?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it-- well --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's in the commission's --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I think that's in the
stipulation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, very good.
Okay. Now, we have a motion on the floor -- oh, is that what
you motioned, by the way?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's pretty close. I did-- I did
have some concern how staff plays into it.
Are we actually saying that this is not acceptable and we expect
it to align up to Rattlesnake Hammock; is that going to be part of it --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- or are we just leaving that
open?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, fine.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. That's agreeable.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- that's -- that was your motion.
Commissioner Henning, that's your motion.
Okay. We have a motion on the floor and a second. Hopefully
there's no further discussion.
All those in favor, say aye.
60
April 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And with that, we will break for 10
minutes.
(A brief recess was taken.)
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. The meeting is back in order.
Thank you.
Item #8D
PETITION FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE VERONA
WALK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT-
CONT1NI IED TO APRIl. 27, 2004- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we're -- the next item is 8(D), and
that's a recommendation this item to be continued to the April 27th,
2004, BCC meeting, and it's a petition for the establishment of the
VeronaWalk Community Development District, and I need a motion
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So move.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor to
continue this item till April 27th by Commissioner Coletta, second by
Commissioner Henning.
Is there any discussion?
(No response.)
61
April 13, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Nothing? Okay, fine.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Item #8E
ORDINANCE 2004-24: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2003-61 AND NO. 2003-62 TO
CLARIFY THE EFFECTIVE DATE PROVISIONS OF THOSE
ORDINANCES; AND AMENDING CHAPTER 49 OF THE CODE
OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, AS CREATED BY ORDINANCE
NO. 2003-61 & 62, BY AMENDING SECTIONS 49-25 AND 49-45,
RESPECTIVELY, PERTAINING TO PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY
CRITERIA; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
AN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE GEOGRAPHIC
BOUNDARIES OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ORDINANCE
-ADOPTED
Item #8F
ORDINANCE 2004-25: ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER
62
April 13, 2004
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMEND1NG ORDINANCE NO. 2003-63,
THE IMMOKALEE RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL
PROGRAM, TO CLARIFY THE EFFECTIVE DATE PROVISIONS.
AN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE GEOGRAPHIC
BOUNDARIES OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
ORDINANCF.- ADOPTFD
MR. MUDD: The next item, Madam Chair, is 8(E), and we're
going to do that in concert with item 8(F), and we'll handle them both
at the same time.
Mr. Schmitt will present.
This item is continued from the -- both items are continued from
the March 23rd, 2004, BCC agenda, and it's an ordinance of the Board
of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending
ordinance 2003-61 and number 2003-62 to clarify the effective date
provisions for those ordinances, and amending chapter 49 of the Code
of Laws and Ordinances as created by ordinance number 2003-61 and
2003-62, by amending section 49-25 and 49-45 respectively,
pertaining to program eligibility criteria; providing for conflict and
severability; providing for inclusion in the Code of Laws and
Ordinances; and providing for effective date. This amendment is to
amend the geographic boundaries to the previously-approved
ordinance.
And the companion, 8(F), this item is also continued from 23
March, 2003 (sic). It's an adoption of an ordinance of the Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, amending ordinance
number 2003-63, the Immokalee Residential Impact Fee Deferral
Program, to clarify the effective date provisions, an amendment to
amend the geographic boundaries of the previously-approved
ordinance is also in order in this particular item.
And Mr. Joe Schmitt, as I said before, community development's
environmental services administrator will present.
63
April 13, 2004
MR. SCHMITT: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record
again, Joe Schmitt, administrator of community development and
environmental services.
Your county manager read through the long title. Basically all
this is is to amend the ordinances to redefine the geographical areas of
the ordinance, and I'll go through the proceedings.
On November 18th, in 2003, the Board of County
Conunissioners approved four economic incentive programs, and
those were by separate ordinances.
Included in those approvals were ordinance 2003-61, which is the
Fee Payment Assistance Programs, and that was designed to mitigate
economic effects of increased impact fee rates for eligible businesses.
And ordinance 2003-62, property tax stimulus, to mitigate the
economic effects of increased relocation and expansion costs for
eligible businesses.
In addition, the Board of County Commissioners adopted
ordinance number 2003-63, amending the impact fee regulations, and
chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Law and Ordinances to
allow for a deferral of certain impact fees for residential development.
During that presentation, I displayed the map that is shown, and
that map depicted boundaries of the areas to which the economic
incentives would apply. The boundaries depicted on the map,
however, actually conflict with those set forth in the ordinance.
The text of the ordinance adopting the economic incentives
stated, the boundaries of the economic -- or the impact-- the
boundaries of the Immokalee redevelopment area were to be expanded
to include the Immokalee Enterprise Zone in its entirety.
The following three maps should provide a better understanding
of the overlapping and conflicting boundaries.
This shows the old enterprise zone. And when you compare the
old enterprise with the new enterprise zone, as shown, in actuality, the
boundaries of the enterprise zone were greatly expanded by the board
64
April 13, 2004
on September 14th, 1999, to include the four census tracts as shown.
The map used in the original presentation illustrating the entirety
of the enterprise zone was actually an outdated map, which depicted
the enterprise zone prior to September 14, 1999.
Consequently, the text of the effective date provisions in the
board-approved ordinance apply to the expansion of the Immokalee
CRA that was considerably larger than what staff intended. So what
we're here this morning to do is try and correct that error.
This map depicts the existing Immokalee CRA boundary. And
I'll go to the next one. And this map here shows the Immokalee
Enterprise boundary, and overlaid on that is the old enterprise zone.
Both staff and the advisory board agree with the proposed
expansion of the CRA. In that meeting when we talked about -- when
we had the ordinances before you, we talked about expanding the
enterprise zone or the CRA boundary to match the enterprise zone so
we wouldn't have these conflicting boundaries.
And shown here today is the old enterprise zone and the
proposed expansion. Now, that will be a separate action we'd have to
come back and talk to you about, but today's ordinance is going to
clarify that.
And basically what we're trying to do is, consequently due to the
confusion, the board approved those ordinances. And what we're
asking to do is that the board recognize that the ordinances as
presented, this will be the map and this will be the geographical area
as defined for the ordinance in regard to the Impact Fee Deferral
Program.
The intent of the Immokalee Redevelopment Advisory Board
was to include all four census tracts within the boundaries of the
redevelopment area. And on February 18, 2004, and again on March
26th, 2004, the advisory board met and affirmed its original intent to
include all four census tracts with the expanded redevelopment area.
Staffs intent was to eventually expand the old CRA boundary to
65
April 13, 2004
the existing boundary of the -- and the enterprise zone. So that was
our intent, and this is basically what we're recommending.
Based on the agreement with the advisory board and with staff,
we are proposing today for your approval to amend these existing
ordinances to clarify -- and I'll show in the following sequential maps
that that -- sequencing slides that shows what we're proposing.
But the four census tract areas as the boundary to which the fee
payment assistance and the Tax Stimulus Program apply.
So what we're saying is that the fee payment assistance and the
Tax Stimulus Program apply to the actual federal enterprise zone as
expanded in 1999; that the Immokalee CRA will reimburse the
county's general fund with the percentage of the tax incremental
financing it receives for the properties located within those
redevelopment areas; that the full ad valorem taxes for the remainder
of the four census tracts of the enterprise zone area continue to go to
the county general fund; and that the Impact Fee Deferral Program
apply only to the geographical area identified as the expanded CRA
boundary.
So this map would be the limits of the residential Impact Fee
Deferral Program, and this map, which, in the red, defines the limits
for the other two programs, the limits of the Fee Payment Assistance
Program and this Tax Stimulus Program.
And so that is basically our proposal and that's what we're
recommending. Subject to your questions, that concludes our
briefing, so --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I-- leave this one up.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me make sure I understand.
The Fee Payment Assistance Program is going to cover a substantially
larger area?
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
66
April 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
simple process.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
Okay. This seems like a fairly
We've heard all this before.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if Commissioner Coletta would
like to make a motion, I'd be happy to second it for approval.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I appreciate that, but what
I'd like to do before I make the motion, I'd like to allow Fred Thomas
to speak.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have one speaker.
MS. FILSON: We have one speaker, Fred Thomas.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good morning, Commissioners.
Thank you very much. Fred Thomas, for the record.
We concur with everything that Joe Schmitt has said, and there's
just two things more. One, I was a little frustrated because I thought
we would have had the boundary before you today, the expanded
boundary of the CRA.
This other thing I don't want anybody to forget, we also have a
Broadband Infrastructure Program, and that should be for the four
census tracts. The only concern -- I just want to make sure that we
don't lose sight of that, that we have the broadband infrastructure.
It was just only a concern on those programs where we're going
to use CRA funds to help defray the cost to the county, and that's why
we had to make sure we come up with this kind of a compromise.
But we would like you-all to also instruct staff to expand the
boundary to the old state enterprise zone -- to include the old state
enterprise zone, and I think I'm saying the same thing you're saying,
Joe Schmitt.
MR. SCHMITT: That is shown on the map right now. Those are
the three areas that--
MR. THOMPSON: Because until that boundary gets established,
67
April 13, 2004
we can't use the -- can't use the --
MR. SCHMITT: I'll use the pointer here. That's this area, that's
this area, and this area, which would expand the CRA, but we want to
also note that this -- these areas down here will be covered by the
incentives as well. So what Fred is asking, and staff concurs, is that
would become the CRA boundary as shown, and as -- on the next
slide, those would be the expanded boundaries to cover the two other
economic incentives.
Now, with the understanding that those -- any businesses that are
located within the CRA boundary would reimburse the TIF as
originally designed. But if they're outside the CRA boundary, within
the enterprise zone, there are certain other advantages to that, and we
agreed that that is -- should be the same geographical area as the
Federal Enterprise Zone, and both the advisory board and staff agree.
And so all we're doing in these amendments is clarifying that
language so they can be implemented properly.
MR. THOMAS: And my concern is to make sure we get the
CRA boundary approved as soon as possible so that we can go on and
start utilizing these incentives.
Thank you very much for your help.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
We have no other speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Then I will close the public hearing.
And Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. And once
again, I want to take the time to thank Fred Thomas for all the time
that he has devoted to making the CRA and the Immokalee Master
Plan, and God knows what else. It seems like there isn't a meeting
that takes place in Immokalee that Fred Thomas isn't an active part at
-- of, and we're very appreciative of the fact that he retired and came
back to work for nothing.
68
April 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So did we.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'd like more people to
do that.
I'd like to make a motion at this time to approve this amendment,
this agenda item. And I don't know if I could include about expanding
the boundary. I think that's another meeting we're going to be coming
back to later.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, if we could get your guidance,
we could come back with that expanded boundary, but that would be a
separate directive action.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. IfI may, please, I'd just
do the motion first, then I'll ask for-- see if my fellow commissioners
agree to bring that back.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion -- and that is for item 10(E) --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct, 10 --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I mean, 8(E).
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 8(E).
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 8(E).
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 8(E).
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor to
approve item 8(E).
MR. MUDD: Based on the staff recommendation, ma'am?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Based on the staff--
MR. MUDD: There's a lot of things in that staff
recommendation, okay, and it covers all -- it covers at least--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. MUDD: -- three items. If you'd like me to -- if you'd like
me to read it out loud, I could.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It wouldn't hurt to read it out
loud, please.
MR. MUDD: Staff recommendation. Comprehensive plan -- and
this has to do with item 8(E). Comprehensive planning recommends
69
April 13, 2004
that the board amend the language of ordinances number 2003-61 and
number 2003-62 to clarify, number one, the four census tract area as
the boundary to which the Fee Payment Assistant Program and the
Property Tax Stimulus Program apply; number two, the CRA will
reimburse the county's general fund with the percentage currently
varying between 50 and 95 percent depending on the incentive
program of the TIF funds it receives for projects located in the
redevelopment area; and number three, that the ad valorem taxes for
the remaining properties of the four census tract areas will continue to
go to the county general fund; an ordinance to amend the boundaries
of the Immokalee redevelopment area to incorporate the areas
contained within the old enterprise zone. Depicted attached areas in
Exhibit A will be presented to the board at a later date.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I have a motion on the floor to
approve, and I'll second.
So we have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coletta to
approve this item with staff recommendations, and a second by
Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And one last thing, if I may, to
direct staff to bring back at an opportune time -- hopefully as soon as
possible -- the option on us expanding the CRA boundary.
70
April 13, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now, do you want to address 8(F)?
MR. MUDD: That was basically what I talked about as --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I heard you mention it, but I
didn't -- you know, I'm not too sure if it would require -- well, you
made it part of the motion --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
I had to take care of. Now --
-- so I guess that covered it.
That's fine. I don't-- that's what
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now we have the companion item --
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, we need a motion on 8(F).
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 8(F).
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- 8(F).
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion for approval.
MR. MUDD: And I can read the staff recommendation, if you'd
like, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
MR. MUDD: The map that was presented to the Board of
County Commissioners on November 18th, 2003, although outdated,
depicted the smaller geographical boundaries that were designed to
most appropriately suit this program, therefore, staff has amended the
language in the ordinances and prepared the attached maps, which are
current and consistent with the intent of the ordinance and the program
area presently -- previously presented to the board.
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
adopt the attached ordinance amending chapter 74 of the Collier
County Code of Laws and Ordinances, the same being the Collier
County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, number 2001-13, as
amended, clarifying the desired -- the desired boundaries of the
Immokalee redevelopment area effective upon filing for the
Department of State.
71
April 13, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. So I have a motion to
approve item 8(F) by Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And a second by Commissioner Coletta.
Is there any discussion?
MS. FILSON: Madam Chairman, I had Fred Thomas registered
to speak for this item as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He's left.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Somebody shake the door and
see if he -- I think he's probably just standing right out there. After
traveling 40 miles to get here, I'd hate to have him lose his opportunity
to speak.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Thomas, did your comments basically go to
both items 8(E) and 8(F)?
MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir, yes, sir. And while I'm here, there
seems to be some confusion out there. I want to make sure we got it
all squared away.
The two economic incentives packages, the impact fee, the tax
deferral -- I mean the tax abatement ones, cover the four census tract
area, plus the CRA area down on the right-hand comer? MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
MR. THOMAS: I just want to make sure.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
MR. THOMAS: I'll take care of it out here now. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And with that, I will close the public
hearing.
No further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
72
April 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. That passes.
Item #8G
A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY NAPLES COMMUNITY HOSPITAL TO THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR THE ISSUANCE
OF A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY TO PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR
THE INTER-FACILITY TRANSFER OF POST HOSPITAL
PATIENTS- CONT1NI ~ED TO APRIIJ 27~ 2004- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, I need a motion for 8(G), which is
recommend that this item be continued to the April 27th, 2004, BCC
meeting. It's a public hearing to consider an application submitted by
the Naples Community Hospital to the Board of County
Commissioners for the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience
and Necessity to provide transportation services for the interfacility
transfer of post-hospital patients.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So move.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So move.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Halas, a second by Commissioner Henning.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
73
April 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Item #8H
PUDZ-2003-AR-3584, ROBERT DUANE OF HOLE MONTES
INC., OF NAPLES, REPRESENTING COLLIER COUNTY
PUBLIC SCHOOLS, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM PUD TO
PUD FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE ORANGETREE
PUD TEXT, (ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-43) TO INCLUDE
"PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL PLANTS AND ANCILLARY
PLANTS" AS A PERMITTED USE TO THE "AGRICULTURE"
(AG) DISTRICT OF THE PUD - CONTINUED TO MAY 11, 2004 -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 8(H), which is old
item 17(A), and that is -- this item requires that all participants be
sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission
members.
It's PUDZ-2003-AR-3584. It's Robert Duane of Hole Montes,
Inc., of Naples representing Collier County Public Schools, requesting
a rezone from PUD to PUD for the purposes of amending the
Orangetree PUD text, ordinance number 91-43, to include public
education of plants and ancillary plants as a permitted use in the
agricultural ag. district of the PUD, and this was brought forward at
Commissioner Coletta's request.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Will all participants who wish to speak on
74
April 13, 2004
this subject please stand and be sworn in.
MS. FILSON: I think she's going to get -- go get Mr. Duane.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. Thank you.
Well, Commissioners, we can start by declaring ex parte until we
wait for Mr. -- oh, here he is, okay.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Thanks for joining us today.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Very good.
And any declaration of ex parte by Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I had email on this, and it's all
present here for inspection if somebody needs to look at it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Talked to staff, and I have had
email, and some time ago I talked to the petitioner about it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One email.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've had email. It's in the file.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I, too, have had one email, and I've
spoken to no one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, since I'm the one that
pulled it -- I'm sure that you're all familiar with the subject material --
the reason I pulled it was the fact that, as you've seen from the email
and I've heard from other people in the Waterways/Orangetree area,
they felt like they were left out of the process and that they didn't have
adequate meetings, they never had a chance to address it, and they
even said that they requested information on it and never received it.
Little bit disappointed in what I heard.
Now, I'd like to have the petitioner address that, and if it's true
that they haven't addressed this in adequate public meetings, I'd like to
see this continued so they can have a public meeting. I'm not against --
basically against the rezone. I am for the public process part though.
75
April 13, 2004
MR. DUANE: For the record, Robert Duane from Hole Montes
and Associates. We did have a neighborhood meeting in the fall of--
fall of 2002. This petition has been in the pipeline for some time. It
was filed on January 9th, 203 (sic), and at that time you were required
to have your neighborhood meetings before you filed the petition,
which has now been in the process for the last 18 months or so. I don't
know that that answers your question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well --
MR. DUANE: I have with me some people this morning. One is
Terri Cole, who attended the neighborhood meeting. I did not attend
that meeting myself.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I could, please, 2002 is far
removed from 2004. And one of the -- the only thing I'm hearing out
there that they're having a real problem with is the uncertainty of
where this bus garage is going to go. And I don't think that's been
addressed in the community.
And what I would like to see is a continuance for two weeks until
that point in time that you have a community meeting so that it could
be -- the public could be able to have their say on it. I don't think
you're going to have any major problems, but it's still something that
comes up, and it does give me some concern.
MR. DUANE: Amy Taylor is also here with me this morning
from the school board. She tells me that time is of the essence.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 2002 to 2004 is two years. Now
we're hearing two weeks is going to be a major stumbling block?
MS. TAYLOR: It may not be, we're just -- as you know -- as a
reminder, this board approved the -- moving forward with the
construction of Palmetto Ridge High School prior to the amendment to
the PUD that we're here before you today to request.
We are concerned that everything be lined up so that school can
open on time. Two weeks may not be a problem, but we're -- just so
there's inspections on time and CO and so forth. That process just
76
April 13, 2004
takes time with working it out with county inspectors and so on. And
we're a little nervous and actually excited that the school's going to be
opening very, very soon, and a little bit worried about a delay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And don't forget the people you
serve is the public out there and the public's right to know, or to be
able to participate at some level is of utmost importance. And that's
the reason why I'm asking you for -- you to -- voluntarily to step
forward and say you would ask for a continuance for two weeks.
MS. TAYLOR: We will be -- we would consider that today if
that's -- if that's what would be satisfactory to the Board of County
Commissioners.
We are through the -- through another aspect, we're putting in a
sidewalk that will connect Waterways to -- for pedestrian access to the
three schools, and we're going to be meeting with them on the 29th
regarding that issue, and we'll be bringing -- asking, actually, their
input.
The problem that we have is that we have two -- we have
locations that could be used for a transportation facility. One is to the
north of the high school that doesn't abut Waterways at all, and it's
about 25 acres, and then the one that the citizens are concerned about,
that half of it, 31 acres, half of it abuts Waterways to its north and to
the west, and then the other is surrounded by east -- I mean west and
south by the utility.
We wanted to then ask the citizens, the residents of Waterways,
what their preferences were, get their ideas about where that could be
located. The facility itself will be a satellite facility. It won't be on
the scale of the one that's at Barron Collier.
With input from the community that we hope to obtain through
our preliminary site development planning, we can make it a much
better fit as, you know, this -- I think single-family had moved in after
Barron Collier had been located.
And there was a couple of problems with -- with actually the
77
April 13, 2004
roadways into there, was really the problem with Tall Pines and the
Barron Collier facility with the screeching of tires and that kind of
thing. So it could be easily resolved by orienting that site, which is 31
acres. We're asking for a 20,000 square foot facility.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fine.
MS. TAYLOR: There's plenty of room.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't live in Waterways.
MS. TAYLOR: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: People that live in Waterways
aren't here today and they would like to be -- oh, I take it back. Glad
to see you here today.
And I'm sure they're going to want to speak on this subject before
we're over with. But still, the public has a right before this
commission passes judgment, moves it on, to be able to speak their
mind and be able to hear what it's all about, and then we can make a
decision.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. And let me just join in and say, I
would hate to rush this right now for that two lousy weeks when this
could mean all the difference between sleeping at night and -- instead
of hearing the beep, beep, beep, beep as the buses pull back and forth
at six in the morning or whatever. And these people need to know
that. And if that has not been accomplished, whatever you're going to
do -- bus barn, that sounds -- transportation facility sounds so much
nicer, doesn't it?
MS. TAYLOR: Yeah, it does.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Whatever you're going to do with your
bus barn, I want to make sure that these people are fully aware of it.
And now we have Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm surprised that we got along this
far in the process without this being addressed by the public, and that
kind of throws up a flag, and I'm wondering why this happened.
And I hope that in prior-- in the future, future dealings with the
78
April 13, 2004
school board, that they're out in front a lot far -- out front -- out front a
lot farther than they were on this one.
And I really am quite amazed that we're this far along in the
process and now you're saying, you know, maybe two weeks is okay,
but we don't want to stall it any longer because school's opening. And
see -- to me this would be very important to the residents out in that
area, and I can't believe that it was shaded over or clouded over.
MS. TAYLOR: It wasn't, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Mainly interested in building the
high school and not looking at all the ancillary buildings that needed
to be put in place.
MS. TAYLOR: At the meeting in 2002, the public meeting, the
conceptual plan was presented and the transportation facility was
shown on that plan and discussed with those that attended. We had no
intention of shading over or keeping this a secret. I think in the
language in the PUD amendment, it does say ancillary as well as
education facilities. It could be, you know, the definition and terms;
what is ancillary?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I guess so.
MS. TAYLOR: You know, I think we all sometimes in
government get carried away with our own terms.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I think sometimes people -- and I
certainly don't mean you -- but people do shade the facts with fancy
words and lead us to believe that something might be something else.
And we as citizens eagerly want to embrace something nice rather
than maybe something different. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I just wanted to mention,
when it comes to scheduling a meeting, I'm already scheduled for the
19th down at the middle school for an Orangetree/Waterway meeting,
but we have three subjects to cover that are going to probably take the
full agenda time. But possibly you may want to consider something
79
April 13, 2004
before that meeting as far as time goes or else some other evening.
I'm not too sure what would work out best for the people at
Waterways and Orangetree, but maybe today they can give us some
guidance on that.
MR. DUANE: Just to add to what Mr. Tay -- Ms. Taylor said,
the plan that was shared with the neighborhood in 202 (sic) is the one
that you see on the wall here. This, of course, being the high school.
At that point in time, we had located the 20,000-foot facility at
this location right here, knowing that there was some concerns about
the location of that facility.
We've since moved it down to the very southern portion of the
property. This is the aerial photo. This here is the utility, so the -- this
facility would be next to the utility.
We have a lake here that's 100 feet in width. We also have a
50-foot type B buffer, which is the same type buffer you would have
single -- adjacent to multi-family, and these are the existing structures
that you see along this property line here, which are set back about 50
feet from the property line.
So we will work with them, and I just wanted to clarify the
recommendations, that we did make them, and that's where we're
headed now.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So then my question to you would be, did
you want to continue this then till the next meeting?
MR. DUANE: That's your call. I think it might be helpful to get
some public input since we have people that have attended--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have some speakers.
MR. DUANE: -- the meeting, and I think we can all benefit from
that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Commissioner Halas, do you --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would just say that after we've
had the public speakers, I'd like to make a motion that this be
80
April 13, 2004
continued to the next board meeting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Very good.
Speakers?
MS. FILSON: First speaker is Ken Lynch.
MR. LYNCH: I'm going to defer my comments to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ken, right up here.
MS. FILSON: He will be followed John Sullivan.
MR. LYNCH: Good morning. I'm Ken Lynch. I'm a property
owner on Grand Rapids Boulevard over in Waterways Naples there.
I think I'm going to defer my comments to Mr. Sullivan. He's our
president of our homeowners association. I think he's going to address
pretty much all of our concerns that we have as residents. So in the
sake of time for the commissioners, I'll defer my comments to him.
MS. FILSON: Okay. The next speaker is John Sullivan.
MR. SULLIVAN: Good morning. Before I get started, I just
want to thank you all very much for affording us the opportunity to
speak to this issue.
As previously stated, my name is John L. (Jake) Sullivan, and I'm
the president of the Waterways of Naples Homeowners' Association,
and for those of you that aren't familiar with Waterways, we're 423
single-family homes located in the Orangetree PUD at the
intersections of Immokalee and Oil Well Roads.
I come before you this morning to voice the concerns of the
community in regard to the proposed zoning change to accommodate
the new Palmetto Ridge High School formerly known as the Lewis
and Clark High School.
While some of the Waterways residents are not totally happy
with the construction of a third school within a stone's throw of our
community, the majority of us do understand the need to build a new
high school to alleviate the student population explosion brought on
by the recent boom in construction east of Collier Boulevard.
81
April 13, 2004
With that said, I'll tell you that our concerns in the granting of
this rezone are not centered around the construction of the educational
facility itself but lie in the proposed acceptance of the ancillary plants,
which we have determined to be a future satellite transportation
facility, the addition of which we feel should be delayed.
The residents of Waterways recognize the additional traffic
burden school buses generate, traveling to pick-up points in the estates
on already overloaded county roads, necessitates the need to construct
a facility to garage these buses closer to their destination.
However, in light of the fact that nobody seems to know at this
time what type of facility is going to be constructed on this property,
the residents of Waterways would request that you disapprove the
rezone or to postpone it, as you decided to do.
Specifically we object to the accommodation of the ancillary
plants, which in this case, as I said, is depicted as the satellite
transportation facility until such time as the Collier County School
District recognizes that this facility needs to be constructed in a
manner so as not to further impede on the daily lives of the residents
of Waterways and other communities.
As I've previously stated, the reservations of the Waterways
residents to you granting this rezone to accommodate these plants are
largely due to the fact that the school district has provided us with
little or no information as to what type of facility would be
constructed on this property, which shares a common border with our
community.
This lack of information has given birth to several serious
concerns and fears. A few of which are: The already over-traveled
Oil Well Road will become gridlocked with the addition of bus traffic
departing from a storage facility in unison before the completion of
two additional travel lanes, thus making it almost impossible for
people to depart from one of our entrances on Oil Well Road which
gains them access to Immokalee Road via a traffic signal.
82
April 13, 2004
The other request -- the request does not allow for -- does not
include maximum allowable heights of structures as recommended by
the Collier County Planning Commission, so we're concerned as to
what size the structure's going to be. Is it going to be single story,
triple story? You know, we don't want some monstrosity growing out
of the middle of the orange groves over there.
The orange grove buffer that separates our property ensures our
privacy. It seems that it's going to be leveled to make way for a large
multistory garage-type facility.
Additionally fears that the sweet smell of orange blossoms that
we have grown to love out there will be replaced with exhaust fumes
and the constant odor of diesel fuel and other petroleum products
stored at the site.
Our further objection to this request is based on an executive
summary that we received where it was found that there are no
environmental issues associated with this rezone. The lack of plans
depicting the character or nomenclature of this facility raise questions
concerning the storage of gasoline, tires, and other petroleum products
on site, as well as the possibility of the improper disposal of worn tires
removed from school buses.
We seem to feel that these issues constitute the numerous
environmental questions similar to those presented with the
application of an ordinary gasoline station. I mean, you'd be
concerned as to where you were going to store these products and how
close to residential areas they were going to be, I would think.
In view of my own lack of knowledge with references to the
Land Development Code, I would like to pose the following questions
to the board, and I think you've already basically answered these.
But if you feel that you must approve the request to bring the
high school into conformance with the LDC, is it possible that you
could grant a special exception to the agriculture district of the present
PUD for the school building only until such time as definitive plans
83
April 13, 2004
for these furore ancillary plants are completed and questions
surrounding their exact placement with regard to our community, type
of construction, and possible uses are addressed and properly
answered?
If it's not possible to review the request without the ancillary
plants, could the request be delayed until such time as we could get
information containing specific guidelines as to the regard of the
nomenclature and uses of the proposed plant.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Sullivan.
And now I will close the public hearing. That's all of our
speakers; is that correct?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioner Halas, you had a
motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I had a motion that we
continue this to the next board meeting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Which will be April 27th.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, why don't we make it the
first one in May.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we make it the first
one in August?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: They seem to be able to feel that they can
do that in two weeks.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. If they can get it done in
two weeks, fine.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. So I have a motion on the
floor to continue this item till the April 27th board meeting. And
Commissioner Coletta seconds that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, yeah. Of course, now, if
they can't be prepared to come back at that meeting, then, of course,
84
April 13, 2004
they'll have to come by -- that meeting or later, let me put it that way.
You know, because you've got to give them a little flexibility if they
can't have that meeting --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I -- that's why I proposed the
first meeting to be in May, and everybody said, no, they can do it in
two weeks. So now, where are we at? Are we going to do it in --
before the next board meeting or are we going to do it before the first
board meeting in May?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Amy, can you have a meeting
within two weeks?
MS. TAYLOR: We have a scheduled meeting with the
association on the 29th.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no. A community meeting,
more than just the association. I don't care if you have an association
meeting, but I also want you to have a community meeting where
Orangetree or anybody else can come to it, too.
MS. TAYLOR: Okay. Did you say that you had one scheduled
for the 19th?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. It's -- I got a full agenda.
MS. TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But if we wanted to -- we could
try to start maybe at 5:30 and you could go ahead from 5:30 to 7:00
with your end.
MS. TAYLOR: Why don't we do our best to try and make it --
have a meeting prior to the -- to your next board meeting, and maybe
we could work with you to see if that's possible.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, with the permission of the
chair. Out of the comer of my eye I see Jake moving his arms up and
down. Obviously he's trying to give me a message, and I can't read his
signal.
Would you step up to the mike and tell me what you're trying to
communicate to me?
85
April 13, 2004
MR. SULLIVAN: We're going to meet with these folks on the
29th, and we have invited Orangetree and Valencia --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. SULLIVAN: -- to come. Our whole -- not just the
association, Commissioner, the whole community is going to be there
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, fine.
MR. SULLIVAN: -- because the whole cormnunity -- they have
the questions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If you would, please, send me
the invitation. I'd like to send it out again.
MR. SULLIVAN: Well, you know, you're always invited.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I know that, but I want to be
able to, one more time, put a little note on it and send it back out to
those contacts that I have in that area also, just one more time. I'm sure
that we're reaching out to the maximum amount of people. MR. SULLIVAN: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So then we cannot continue until the 27th,
because their meeting is two days after that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then we're going to have it the first
board meeting in May.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So now we're moving this item--
or continuing this item till the first meeting in May, motioned by
Commissioner Halas, and second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
86
April 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Item # 9A
RESOLUTION 2004-103 RE-APPOINTING W. JEFFREY CECIL
AND APPOINTING ROBERT GUIDIDAS TO THE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING COMMISSION- ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS TO
BE WAIVED- ADOPTED
Now we move on to --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 9(A), which is
appoint-- appointment of members of the Affordable Housing
Commission.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to recommend the
committee's recommendations.
MS. FILSON: And if you do that--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Waive the ordinance number
blah-blah-blah.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor to
approve the committee recommendations with a second by
Commissioner Halas.
I have one question. There was a lady there that was named
Peggy Cabe who has, from all of the things I read in here anyway,
extensive background. I'm wondering if there's ever an opportunity
for an alternate in case some of these people cannot participate.
MS. FILSON: I don't believe -- I'll have to defer to the county
87
April 13, 2004
attorney, but I don't believe you can appoint an alternate unless it's in
the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I see, okay. Thank you.
Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a second.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we do have a 5-0 on that.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2004-104 APPOINTING MATTHEW HUDSON TO
THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE-
ADOPTED
MS. FILSON: The next issue is to appoint a member to the
County Government Productivity Cormnittee, and the committee's
recommendation is Matthew Hudson.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Excuse me just a minute. Could I ask you
folks, if you wouldn't mind, to maybe step out in the hall and discuss
this. Thank you. I'm sorry. I hope I wasn't rude. Thank you. Okay.
MS. FILSON: The next item is to appoint one member to fulfill
the remainder of a vacant term on the County Government Productive
Committee. The recommendation is Matthew Hudson.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So move to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor by
88
April 13, 2004
Commissioner Halas, a second by Commissioner Henning.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have another 5-0.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2004-105 APPOINTING THOMAS KEPP, JR. AS
HUMANE SOCIETY OF COLLIER COUNTY
REPRESENTATIVE; DAVID ESTES AS LAW ENFORCEMENT
REPRESENTATIVE; DR. RANDALL EISEL AS VET OR VET
TECH REPRESENTATIVE; SUSAN WEISS AS PET RETAIL
REPRESENTATIVE; LINDA KRAMER AS ANIMAL ACTIVIST
GROUP; AND KAREN ACQUARD AND JENNIFER HAWKE AS
AT IJARGF, RF.PRFJSENTATIVF, S- ADOPTED
MS. FILSON: The next item is to appoint members to the
Animal Services Advisory Board. And I have these listed in the
categories that you need to appoint them in.
You need to appoint one member representing the Humane
Society. You have two applicants from that category.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion to appoint Tom
Kepp as human -- Humane Society of Collier County.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
89
April 13, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor from
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Coyle to
appoint Tom Kepp to represent the Humane Society of Collier
County.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning, did you have any
discussion on that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
MS. FILSON: The next category is law enforcement, and I've
only had -- I only have one applicant for that category.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. A motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion for Dr. Randall
90
April 13, 2004
Eisel for vets or vet techs category. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have motion on the floor to
appoint Dr. Randall Eisel, from vet -- as a vet tech. from -- to this
committee, and a second by Commissioner Coletta.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
MS. FILSON: And one from pet retail.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion to approve Susan Weiss,
representing the pet retail category.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Fiala, a second by Commissioner Coyle to appoint
Susan Weiss.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to --
MS. FILSON: Animal--
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
-- to approve Linda Kramer for
91
April 13, 2004
animal activist groups.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second that one.
MS. FILSON: And the final choice is--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, we have to vote on that one.
MS. FILSON: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, you've got two more?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not from that category.
MR. MUDD: No. You have a motion --
MS. FILSON: A different category.
MR. MUDD: -- you have a second, but you don't have a vote on
that particular item yet.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning to appoint Linda Kramer and a second by
whom?
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Coyle.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: By Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve Karen
Acquard for at large.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And a motion to approve Jennifer Hawke
also. We need two at large people. MS. FILSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And so we have a motion on the floor to
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second it.
92
April 13, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- appoint Karen Acquard and Jennifer
Hawke, and a second by Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Coletta.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- Coletta.
So the motion was for Karen Acquard --
MR. WEIGEL: One motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- by Commissioner Coletta, right?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And seconded by Commissioner Coyle,
and then a motion for Jennifer Hawke by --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Separately.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: They're both in the same category.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know, but you've got two
separate motions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I know. Okay. You have to take them
separately?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, please.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
So all those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's for Karen Acquard.
And then I've motioned to approve Jennifer Hawke, and I had a
second from Commissioner Coletta.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
93
April 13, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Before we go on to the next
part, if I may?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I did notice that there
was many dedicating (sic) and caring residents that have applied. We
were limited to seven picks. I would -- wouldn't want to miss out on
the remainder individuals' ability and everything.
It's a very passionate subject, and I think that we ought to
encourage the other members -- or other applicants here to attend the
meetings and take an active part in any way we possibly can, because
it was a very difficult decision. There was --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, it really was.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It was, and--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I think that's a good suggestion to
encourage everybody to sit in on these meetings. I know, other than
Karen Acquard, I didn't know any of these people. But you can tell
that they were all passionate about the subject.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I might mention there
was one gentleman on here that I thought it was going to be a little
difficult. You've got two people from District 5 on the same one, so I
didn't move quite as fast. But it's Jack Johnson, he's from Jack and
Ann's Feed Store in Immokalee, and the man is very knowledgeable
about the animals such as cows and horses, and he owns a number of
herds of cattle there around Immokalee.
And I hope that he takes an active part in this. Right now we're
having some difficulty. As we know, we have a large cow herd at
Robert's Ranch that's been more or less abandoned, and he would be a
94
April 13, 2004
person that we may want to use for a reference.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. You heard that, Jack Johnson.
Make sure you come.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2004-106 APPOINTING ROBERT VIGLIOTTI TO
THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION-
ADOPTED
Okay. And moving on to 9(D).
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
Robert Vigliotti.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Vigliotti.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Motion to approve the applicant,
Vigliotti.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion to approve Robert
Vigliotti to the Collier County Planning Commission by
Commissioner Henning, and a second by Commissioner Halas.
Do I have any conversation on that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Passes, a 5-0.
95
April 13, 2004
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2004-107 APPOINTING PETER HERARD TO THE
BI,ACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD-ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Herard.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
Now we go on to the Black Affairs
Motion to approve Peter Her--
Herard.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. A motion on the floor to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- approve Peter Herard, and a second by
-- Commissioner Coletta was the motion, second by Commissioner
Halas.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Item #9F
RESOLUTION 2004-108 APPOINTING MICHAEL BAUER AND
JUDITH HUSHON TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY
COl INCII, - ADOPTED
96
April 13, 2004
9(F).
MS. FILSON: The next one is appointment of members to the
Environmental Advisory Council. We're appointing two members to
serve four-year terms.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'd like to motion to have Michael Bauer
as a -- as one of the two members to appoint.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to nominate Judith M.
Hushon as the second person.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion to approve -- oh,
wait a minute. We have two different motions again.
Okay. So we have a motion to approve Michael Bauer. Did I
have a second on that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll give you a second on that
one, because he was -- from what I can gather, he was one of staffs
nomina --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. He and Ms. Ellis were the staffs
recommendations for this.
MS. FILSON: Staff-- staff isn't allowed to make
recommendations. They were --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They made comments.
MS. FILSON: --just support-- yeah, their comments.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right. They had--
MS. FILSON: And it's a quasijudicial board, so the board cannot
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Actually, they had glowing comments for
both Ms. Ellis and Mr. Bauer, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How can they make comments?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So -- pardon me?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How is it that they -- our staff
makes comments on recommendations?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we can disregard them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, that's right.
97
April 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just find that odd.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So I have a -- I found it helpful,
quite frankly, very helpful.
So we have a motion on the floor to accept Michael Bauer to -- as
one member of the EAC, and a second by Commissioner Coyle (sic).
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to make a motion that we
approve Judith M. Hushon.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a motion on the floor to approve
Judith M. Hushon, and a -- by Commissioner Halas, and a second by
Commissioner Coyle.
Any discussion on that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I am not going to go along
with that because I feel that Alexandra would be a better choice, to be
honest with you, so --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's your opinion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, that's my opinion, that's
tree. But I just wanted to mention ahead of time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Everybody's entitled to one.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: One opinion, that's right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's all I get, dam it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I'm bigger than you. I
98
April 13, 2004
should get two.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor to
appoint Judith Hushon by Commissioner Halas and a second by
Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Okay. We have a 3-2 on that for Judith Hushon.
Item #9G
RESOLUTION 2004-109 APPOINTING DOUGLAS HOUSE AS
OWNER/OPERATOR AND MURRAY HENDEL AS NON-
OWNER/OPERATOR TO THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL- STAFF TO PROVIDE A REPORT REGARDING
AI~TFRNATFJ MEMBER FOR ADVISORY BOARDS- ADOPTED
MS. FILSON: And the next appointment is appoint two
members to the Tourist Development Council. We need one
owner-operator, one nonowner-operator.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to place
Murray Hendel's name in nomination for the nonowner-operator.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor to
appoint Murray Hendel --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- by Commissioner Coyle, and a second
by Commissioner Henning.
All those in favor, say aye.
99
April 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would like to nominate Doug
House as an owner-operator.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor to
accept Doug House as an owner-operator. Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And a second -- I have the motion on the
floor by Commissioner Coletta and a second by Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning opposes.
And -- yeah, I hate to see Joe Dinunzion and Rhone Saunders go,
because they're marvelous members. And they were the -- they were
the committee recommendations. And I would just like to say that I've
gone along with the other commissioners, but we will miss them,
because they were great members.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I agree. I think it's a tough
choice. I hope we can get them back on.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. They were -- they were both
excellent, and they both asked -- said that they would like to serve --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: At a later date.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- on a committee. Maybe, you know,
100
April 13, 2004
who knows, they can maybe sit in and advise.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There are no altemates in this
committee; is that what we're saying?
MS. FILSON: No, sir, no alternates on TDC.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I know there are a couple committees
now where we've found that we really should have an alternate
because sometimes we appoint somebody and-- like in one of the
things today, we appointed a person who I know is extremely busy
and has a tough time making some meetings, and we don't have an
alternate there. And--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if they don't have a
quorum, the meeting doesn't take place.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's right, that's right. So then they can't
conduct business without a quorum. So we ought to -- we ought to
consider having an alternate on every one of these advisory boards.
Commissioners, what do you think about that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's an excellent idea, because I tell
you what it does, it gives a person an opportunity to become familiar
with the board, and they can be better qualified to serve as a regular
member once the opportunity presents itself. So if you can have
alternates who sit there and participate or listen and observe the board,
I think it's an excellent way to prepare someone to serve on these
boards.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. And it usually then gives us an
opportunity to see how that person performs --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- so that when a space becomes
available, they can move up into that position. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So I'd like to make a motion that we ask
staff-- do we have to do that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, just direct staff.
101
April 13, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Direct staff, okay, to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Direct Sue Filson.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- to put together an agenda item for us to
approve appointing an alternate to each of the advisory boards that do
not have one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Or where it's appropriate.
MR. MUDD: David, that's an ordinance change, I think, in a lot
of--
MR. WEIGEL: That's very broad. We have between 55 and 60
committees and ordinances for many of those. I would suggest that
with county manager and Sue Filson and county attorney, that we
provide you with a report with recommendations, and then you could
advise us, if you wish, upon discussion, to make the appropriate
change, whether by resolution or ordinance. That takes advertising.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, I'd love to see that happen,
because I know we sat here at the TDC meeting last month, and we
could not conduct the meeting because we didn't have a quorum. And,
of course, we had no alternates. And you read that over and over
again with some of the other advisory boards as well. They can't
conduct business without a quorum.
MS. FILSON: And may I ask when he amends that ordinance
that he puts a definition of alternate in there. I get so many questions
on that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Very good. So then you don't
need a motion to do that, do you?
MR. WEIGEL: No. I accept this as board direction. I think it --
it looks like it's a coordinate effort because we're --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I see all the heads nodding here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, very good. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: And Commission -- Madam Chair, just so you
know about that particular issue, there's some advisory boards, some
102
April 13, 2004
semijudicial boards that you have that are basically directed by Florida
statute. In those particular cases, you probably won't be able to add an
alternate unless it specifies that in the Florida statute.
So when you come back, there's going to be some -- there's going
-- for instance, the Tourist Development Council, I think it specifies in
the Florida statute that it be a nine-member board. I don't think it
gives you the opportunity to grab an alternate that could vote. So
those kinds of things, the attorney will come back and let you know
where --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great.
MR. MUDD: -- you're on solid ground as far as an alternate and
those areas that it might be impossible until there's some kind of a
state statute change.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. Okay.
We have six minutes left till noon. Is there a subject on here --
because we need to break at noon in order to get back here by one,
because we have a one o'clock time certain.
So either we can break right now -- unless you have a six-minute
item on this agenda, and I don't see one, quite frankly.
Item # 1 OH
RESOLUTION 2004-110: A RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 112.061(14), FLORIDA STATUTES, ADOPTING THE
FEDERAL SCHEDULE FOR TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT
RATES FOR SUBSISTENCE AND MILEAGE FOR COUNTY
EMPLOYEES WHO ARE TRAVELING ON COUNTY BUSINESS-
ADOPTFD
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am, 10(H).
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, yeah, that is a good one.
103
April 13, 2004
Recommendation to approve a resolution pursuant to section
112.061 (14), Florida statutes, adopting the federal schedule for travel
reimbursement rates for subsistence and mileage for county
employees who are traveling on county business.
If the board will reco -- remember, you directed staff to come
back with a recommendation because our per diem rates were a bit out
of whack. They hadn't been updated in a long time, and they -- it
didn't seem like they were up to date.
Ms. Len Price, the administrative services division administrator
will present this particular item.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: See how easy it is?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- move for approval. A motion on the
floor to approve, excuse me, by Commissioner Halas, and a second by
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But we'll let you speak.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any discussion?
MS. PRICE: There's no need.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, just so you know on the record, what this
will do is, right now our per diem rate is $21 a day. This will adjust it
based on the federal government's comparisons of cities and other
counties within the United States, and it ranges anywhere from
between $28 and $48 as far as per diem is concerned.
Right now our gas mileage reimbursement is 29 cents, and this
will bring it up to 37 -- 37.5 -- 37.5 cents per mile, and that's basically
the broad perspective on what we're doing as far as update is
concemed.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. I have a motion on the floor
and a second.
Any discussion, Commissioners?
104
April 13, 2004
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We are now going to be breaking for
lunch. It's 11:56. We'll see you back here at one o'clock.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I provide you with a report of
interest?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: In the past hour-- there's been a lot
of discussion about who talks the most. In the last -- in the last hour,
Commissioner Coletta --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you're still on -- you're still on hot
mike, okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's okay. Commissioner Coletta
spoke 10 minutes, Commissioner Halas spoke two minutes, and
Commissioner Coyle didn't say a thing, so --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No comment.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I see that he had nothing to say.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, you have a hot mike.
Item #8A
RESOLUTION 2004-112: A RESOLUTION BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
APPROVING THE COLLIER COUNTY SECOND AMENDED
105
April 13, 2004
CONSOLIDATED PLAN ONE-YEAR ACTION PLAN FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANTS (CDBG) FUNDING, AUTHORIZING
NECESSARY CERTIFICATIONS, APPROVING EXECUTION OF
CDBG SUB-RECIPIENT AGREEMENTS BY COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (CDES)
DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR, AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION TO
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD), AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE- ADOPTED
Item #8B
RESOLUTION 2004-113: A RESOLUTION BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 COLLIER COUNTY
CONSOLIDATED PLAN ONE-YEAR ACTION PLAN, FOR
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG),
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS (HOME) AND
EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT (ESG) PROGRAMS,
AUTHORIZING NECESSARY CERTIFICATIONS, APPROVING
EXECUTION OF CDBG SUB-RECIPIENT AGREEMENTS BY
CDES DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR, AUTHORIZING
SUBMISSION TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVF. DATE- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. The meeting is back in order,
and now we move on to 8(A), which is an agenda item to be heard
immediately at one p.m., followed by 8(B).
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, both -- ma'am, both are resolutions --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Couldn't tell the different.
106
April 13, 2004
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. The first is a resolution by the Board
of Commissioners approving the Collier County Second Amended
Consolidated Plan One-Year Action Plan for fiscal year 2002-2003 for
the Community Development Block Grant, CDBG, funding,
authorizing necessary certifications, approving execution of CDBG
sub-recipient agreements by the Community Development's
Environmental Services Division administrator, authorizing
submission to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, and providing for an effective date. That's 8(A).
We'd like to do 8(B) and present at the same time. And 8(B) is a
resolution by the Board of County Commissioners approving the fiscal
year 2004-2005 Collier County Consolidated Plan One-Year Action
Plan for Community Development Block Grant, CDBG, comma,
Home Investment Partnerships, HOME, and Emergency Shelter
Grants, ESG Programs, authorizing necessary certifications, approving
execution of the CDBG sub-recipient agreements by CD -- by the
Community Development's Environmental Services administrator,
authorizing submission to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, and providing for an effective date.
And to present today is Mr. Cormac Giblin from your -- your
subject matter expert from Community Development's Environmental
Services.
MR. GIBLIN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank you. My
name is, for the record, Cormac Giblin, your housing manager and
your -- also your grants development manager.
We're going to be walking through two documents today. One is
the -- both of these have been delivered to you in draft form
approximately 30 days ago, and in final form at the end of last week.
The thinner one is the amended fiscal year 2002-2003 CDBG action
plan, and then the more comprehensive one is the current, fiscal year,
2004-2005 proposed action plan.
We've put together a short slide show presentation hopefully to
107
April 13, 2004
walk you through the process and the steps involved in developing
these plans for the community, and I'd like to introduce Mrs. Janeen
Person from our department to walk through the presentation.
MS. PERSON: For the record, my name is Janeen Person, grants
development coordinator with Financial Administration and Housing.
Good afternoon, Commissioners.
I'd like to quickly do an overview of the consolidated plan.
Basically the consolidated plan is the county's strategic plan for
helping low and moderate income households. It includes the
one-year action plan which reflects how each year of our entitlement
funds will be used. It is required by federal law to enable us to receive
'entitlement funds through HUD and it concludes that affordable
housing is the highest priority need in Collier County.
Our entitlement programs for fiscal year '04-'05 -- there are three
of four programs we'll be receiving, Community Development Block
Grant, or CDBG, HOME, housing investment partnerships, and a new
program entitled ESG, or Emergency Shelter Grants.
This is going to be the fourth year for CDBG funds for Collier
County and the second year for HOME. Under HOME, we are
receiving a new program called the American Dream Down Payment
Initiative. That is part of HOME, and that will be new for us this year,
as well as the ESG, Emergency Shelter Grant Program.
The goal of the Community Development Block Grant Program
is to develop viable urban communities by assisting low and moderate
income households through physical development programs
supporting the program's three national objectives, which are listed
above, to provide decent housing, provide a suitable living
environment, and expand economic opportunities.
The HOME Program was created by the National Affordable
Housing Act of 1990. The HOME Program provides funds to Collier
County based on the following program objectives: Providing decent
affordable housing to low and moderate income households;
108
April 13, 2004
expanding the capacity of nonprofit housing providers; strengthening
the ability of state and local governments to provide housing; and
leveraging private sector participation.
The American Dream Down Payment Initiative authorized by
President Bush for 200 million in grants across the nation -- and this
will provide funds enabling Collier County to address the program's
national objectives of increasing minority homeownership rates,
revitalizing and stabilizing communities, and providing down payment
and closing cost assistance.
The Emergency Shelter Grant Program is meant to assist state
and local governments in providing facilities and services to meet the
needs of the homeless either through direct assistance or through local
nonprofit and faith-based service providers.
This program provides funding in five main categories.
Rehabilitation, renovation or conversion; essential services to
homeless families and individuals; emergency shelter and transitional
housing operational costs; homeless prevention activities; and also
grant administration.
This process entails a great deal of public input. Staff has
worked very hard to make sure that we have communicated the
process. And we had public hearings in Immokalee and Golden Gate
in November.
We always advertise the meeting notices in English and Spanish,
and always in the Inunokalee Bulletin and the Daily News, and we
also always use a public solicitation process for the part of the
entitlement funds that we are going to put out competitively within the
community, and this year that was for the public service projects.
This slide shows the public participation schedule, and it is a
pretty comprehensive timeline, as you can see, of all the steps that we
followed in order to solicit public input for the development of this
plan.
We also have the -- involved in this process the Citizens
109
April 13, 2004
Advisory Task Force who are another link to the public and help us
with public input.
Our funding sources for the fiscal year '04-'05 entitlement plan
are $2,785,000 in Community Development Block Grant funds, which
includes a $20,000 carry-forward from fiscal year '03-'04; 787,000 in
housing investment partnerships; $93,307 for the new American
Dream Down Payment Initiative; and 96,461 for the Emergency
Shelter Grant Program, for total funding of $3,761,768.
We wanted to share with you just a few highlights of all of the
projects that are included in the plan. We specifically wanted to talk
about projects that we have planned to do in Copeland. And the
amended '02-'03 plan and the Copeland projects in '04-'05 are -- kind
of work in concert with each other. The '02-'03 are phase one of the
same projects that are in the '04-'05 plan.
As you can see, we've listed 277,000 in water line repair and
burial. This is going to assist 16 families in Copeland through proper
water pipe installation. There will be 200,000 from the '02-'03
amended plan added to this project for a total of 477,000.
The second project is the streetlight enhancement; $20,000 in
phase two, which is approximately 15 streetlights; 30,000 in phase
one, which is approximately 48 streetlights, and this is going to benefit
over 198 people. We also worked with Collier County Sheriffs
Department in the placement of these lights in Copeland.
The next item is land acquisition. Purchasing land for public
facility development. And the use of this -- final use of this will be
determined by the residents of Copeland/Lee Cypress. County staff
has worked very closely with the Copeland Civic Association, many
of whom are here today, and we will work with them to determine the
best use of this -- this funding. So that's a total of 50,000 for '04-'05,
and another 40,000 in the '02-'03 amended plan.
Demolition and clearance. That's going to be a total of $104,046
between both years. That's going to be assisting the entire community
110
April 13, 2004
by demolishing unsafe structures as well as removing them.
There's also $5,000 in the amended '02-'03 plan for Copeland to
pay a small stipend and expenses for training and travel to meet with
county staff for a community liaison. It will be a resident of
Copeland/Lee Cypress and who will work -- continue to work with
staff and the community, a civic association, on going forward with
plans and projects for the community.
The next item are the public services projects. This was our open
competitive process for '04-'05. We funded three different projects;
$100,000 for a psychiatric outpatient routine and urgent services
program that will provide psychiatric care, nursing, and licensed
clinician staff and medications to 143 participants.
Secondly, a youth and family services prevention program.
That's going to assist 600 participants and 150 families who are
diverse and at risk for child abuse. It's a prevention program, I should
clarify.
The third project is the Immokalee Youth Services Program.
This is a summer employment program. This program was approved
in last fiscal year, and it was carried out in Immokalee. It will employ
25 to 30 teenagers. It was very successful. This will be year two of
that very successful project.
This is just a map giving you an overall idea of where the
projects are. As you can see, we have covered the county. We have
located projects that have a specific geographic location, pinpointed
those.
The items that are in the box, there are four items; tenant based
rental assistance, single-family down payment assistance,
single-family housing rehabilitation assistance, and then our fair
housing education. Those are countywide. Those are not a specific
location. Those help people from the entire county. Are there any questions?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, I have one, and that is, in the -- in
111
April 13, 2004
the executive summary, it was mentioned that presently, the dollars
that were originally allocated for the Linwood sidewalk are being
withdrawn, and--
MS. PERSON: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- and I'd asked at the last meeting if they
would be reinstated once the problem has been solved. But just for the
audience in general, I would appreciate it if you would, again, tell
people -- because we had quite a meeting with the people in the
triangle, and they're very upset.
And I tried as best I could to explain why the dollars weren't
being spent now and trying to give them an idea of when this would
be taking place, but it's been on the books for a few years now, and it's
still never taken place, and they weren't very satisfied. So I said I
would bring it up at this meeting and ask you to reply to that.
MS. PERSON: That's correct, Commissioner Fiala. We are
under a timeliness incentive from HUD. We have to spend those
dollars within a certain time frame, and because this project was
unable to go forward, we had given it extensions. And as to the
specific reasons that those departments couldn't do it, I don't think I'm
qualified to speak to that.
But we have an obligation to spend HUD dollars within a certain
time frame, and if we cannot do that after proper extensions, we have
to take that money back and reallocate it to other projects.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I understand that. But I think they were
more concerned with what the holdup was and why the problem
wasn't being solved. You know, you don't have that answer? MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, I can help on that one.
In order to put the sidewalk on Linwood, we'd have to move the
force main, the sewer force main, to the tune of about a million
dollars. No way shape or form -- in other words -- and there's no
reason for us to move the force main right now that basically goes
down the extent of that street --
112
April 13, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's the force main to the county
building here?
MR. MUDD: Yeah, plus there's a school that's hooked to it and
other issues, but it primarily feeds the county facility. In order to
move the force main, it costs the county ratepayers a million dollars to
put in the sidewalk.
So when we're ready to put the force main in or replace it or
move it or whatever, in the future, and it -- and I can't tell you it's
going to be next year, two years, but I believe that within about a
five-year period of time, the county will outgrow-- the county
compound the -- you know, it also feeds the jail -- and I'm not saying
that we want to have inmates for all our jail cells, okay, but
projections are that we will have expanded to such a capacity that we
will exceed that 24-inch force main, and we'll either have to change
the direction of it, move it, upgrade it, whatever, but not in the
necessary-- not in that location.
And at that particular time, the staff is -- with the Bayshore CRA,
is willing to come forward with their application again for this
particular case and -- for the sidewalk and upgrades, and they carried
the day with your advisory committee before, because it's a
worthwhile project, plus it's in a CRA, which is -- you know, has been
identified as a blighted area, so it fits right in, and we don't see where
in the future that would be an issue as far as --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's going to be few years down the road
yet --
MR. MUDD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- you're saying? And there's no way to
put a sidewalk on the other side of the street?
MR. MUDD: No, ma'am, we tried that. I tried everything I
could on that one in order to get that sidewalk in, because I really
wanted to have a sidewalk on Linwood.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's a heavily traveled route.
113
April 13, 2004
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And so close to the school, yes.
MS. PERSON: Any other questions?
MR. MUDD: We have been able to get down there and fix a lot
of the flooding though and get the culverts and the swales --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Have you?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. We've improved that immensely.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, they --
MR. MUDD: We were able to get that part done. We just
couldn't get the final part on the sidewalk finished.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. The school was, not complaining,
but stating how they have to have dry clothing and dry shoes there for
the children who walk to school in the rain, yeah. Okay. MS. PERSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we have any speakers?
MS. FILSON: I have four speakers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Donnie McDowell. He'll be
followed by Ray Cadwallader.
MR. McDOWELL: Hi, good afternoon. My name is Donnie
McDowell, president of the Copeland Civic Association, and I'm here
with quite a few of our residents here today who, we support this
project, and we've formed this association.
And we came a long way with our community, worked real hard,
~and I think this here will continue that effort and make this a much
better place to live and to be. And we have, like I say, quite a few of
us here, some board members and some folks here --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You can raise your hands. Let us see all
of you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Raise your hands.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Wow.
MR. McDOWELL: And -- so we have some good support, and
114
April 13, 2004
we've came a long ways out in Copeland if-- and you-all have been
following us through some of the projects and the newspaper articles
and stuff, and so we support this, and hopefully you-all will approve
what's going on.
Ray? He's next, I guess.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Ray Cadwallader. He will be
followed by Lee Noble.
MS. CADWALLADER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I
came to the beautiful county of Collier three and a half years ago and
was looking around for something to do, and I made the mistake of
meeting up with Jim Coletta, and he put me to work.
And one of the areas where I've been working is to set up civic
associations. One of those associations is the Copeland Civic
Association. This is probably, undoubtedly, the most successful civic
association that has been set up so far. With that in mind, why, I've
had the privilege of attending most of the meetings and watching this
civic association work and do the job.
Now, they can't do everything. You folks have to do something,
they have to do something, and there are other things that have to
occur. There are major questions about title, legal problems so far as
property's concerned, there are major questions about zoning, where
the zoning lines are going, and these are all starting to become a
reality, but they're not here on the table today.
The staff has been most supportive, Denny Baker and his group
and Cormac and all -- well, there are too many to name, but they've
been most supportive and have actually spent their off time out in the
community doing things.
We had to go through an exercise so far as HUD was concerned
so far as the census data, and what was Copeland was the issue, and
we had to go through -- they had to go through a survey to offset
HUD, who was saying that the average income in Copeland was like
$49,000 plus or minus, and the average property ownership there,
115
April 13, 2004
single-family was like $240,000, and it just made no sense. So the
community went through that survey process and came up with those
conclusions.
The train is now moving, the tracks are there, and we'll be back
asking for other things, not in the major form of this kind of money,
but other things that have to occur in order to finish making Copeland
a suitable place to live. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Did you state your name for
the record, just in case?
MR. CADWALLADER: Ray Cadwallader.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Lee Noble. He will be
followed by Jane Bee.
MR. NOBLE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
my name is Lee Noble. As one of the concerned citizens, many
concerned citizens of the Copeland area, I just would like to say I
support everything that our civic association has strived to accomplish,
including all the proposed projects by the staff.
We'd like to thank everyone, and I speak for many that couldn't
be here today, that we would like to thank everyone for their valiant
efforts in trying to help us out in that community. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker, Jane Bee.
MS. BEE: I, too, want to speak to the support of these two
projects and want to thank everybody for what they've been doing for
Copeland for the last 10 years. And this water pipe project should just
about finish us up. I just want to say thank you, and please vote for it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I want to thank you, Commissioner
Coletta, for all you've done to support these people and encourage
them and help them to move forward.
I've been there three times now since you've brought it to light,
116
April 13, 2004
you know, and you can see an improvement.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's an amazing community, you
know. It's like Ray Cadwallader said, it's probably one of our most
successful civic associations in the county. They've very driven.
They've done some amazing things. I mean, I just marvel at what
they've done. It's been a pleasure to work with them.
And with that in mind, I'd like to make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
I have a motion on the floor from
This is for 8(A); is this correct?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: For 8(A), yes.
MR. MUDD: We'll do 8(A), and then we'll do 8(B), separate
motions, if that would be all right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And staff recommendations, right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: To approve staff recommendations, and I
have a second from Commissioner Halas.
Is there any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And there you go.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, I need to have a motion for 8(B), please.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I make a motion that we
117
April 13, 2004
approve 8 --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, you know what?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forgive me.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I didn't close the meeting. Can I close the
meeting even though we've voted?
MR. WEIGEL: Having noted that, we're all set to go ahead.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And this one, before you make a
motion, do we have any speakers? MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any presentations from staff?.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, you've already received it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Then I will motion to close item 8(B).
Now you can give your motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Motion to approve
according to staff recommendations.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'll second that also.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Motion to approve according to
staff recommendations by Commissioner Coletta, second by
Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we're done. Thank you for all -- all
for being here. That was nice.
118
April 13, 2004
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Nice of you all to come. It shows a lot of
unity. Okay.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us -- we're going to let
them leave, and--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Madam Chair, that brings us to item 10(A),
10(B), 10(C), and 10(D), and one of the -- one of the perplexing
problems I had is to figure out which one was going to come first on
this agenda because they all cover issues, and some incorporate more
than others, but let me try to -- try to go over that a little bit.
10(A) is to approve the tourist development category A 10-year
expense and revenue projection. And you'll notice in your backup
documentation that you basically have three 10-year budgets there.
One that's CAC and TDC approved, another one that's your parks and
rec. board approved, and the other one is a staff recommendation.
The differences in the 10-year plans between the three basically
center on three major items. First is -- is the Vanderbilt Beach parking
garage, a lump sum payment previously concurred board project, or
does it need to be bonded over a series of years as part of the parks
and recs' $2 million allocation based on board policy.
The TDC and CAC basically recommended that that be a bonded
issue and be taking out -- taken out of the parks and rec. access $2
million piece that starts in year 2005.
The PARAB basically said no, that needs to be -- that's a
previously-approved item by the board for $3.8 million, and it was not
part of the $2 million allocation of parks and rec.
Staft~s recommendation is that it be separate and distinct,
preapproved by the board for $3.8 million, and the -- and the parks
and recs' $2 million start -- allocations start in 2005, and that be part of
it. That's the first difference.
The second difference has to do with Hideaway Beach and is
119
April 13, 2004
Hideaway Beach a valid project based on the board-adopted policy
from December.
The CAC and TDC boards basically put the Hideaway Beach
project 1 O-year into the budget and basically approved that it was a
vital tourism area-- I'm talking about Hideaway Beach-- was a vital
tourism area subject to abnormal erosion pending it having access,
Hideaway Beach, from a public -- public street. That's one issue.
CAC and TDC put it into the budget. PARAB didn't basically
say anything because that's not part of their business. They're
basically doing beach access as far as parks and recs. are concerned,
and they believe that was a Coastal Advisory Committee/TDC --
coastal advisory issue, so they didn't have much to say on that.
Staff's position is, it presently does not meet the county policy for
beach access based on the December policy that the board adopted,
and so the staff did not have that as part of their packet.
The next item has to do with the Gordon Pass, and it has to do
with monitoring of T-Groins and turtle monitoring. The Gordon Pass
area does not meet your beach eligibility criteria from December.
The CAC and TDC proposal 1 O-year plan had that particular
project in it, and it was the consensus of the CAC at the time that the
board had started that particular project in past years and it had one
year to go, and, therefore, it should be part of the 2004-2005 budget
cycle to finish it up.
Staff's -- staff's recommendation is we don't have that in there
because it isn't eligible under your policy. Again, PARAB didn't say
anything about it because they believe that was a CAC issue, had to do
with beach renourishment and inlet management and whatnot.
So if-- those are the three -- those are the three differences that
are -- that are in the 1 O-year expense and revenue projections.
I would say to you that 10(C) gets at the issue of Hideaway
Beach and is it or is it not an eligible project and gets into that
discussion. And I will also say that that particular decision makes a
120
April 13, 2004
whole lot of other issues on the 1 O-year budget come into play.
10(D) gets at the issue of the Gordon Pass, T-Groins and turtle
monitoring issue that I mentioned before about a previous project, and
this was the last year. So that talks about that project.
10(B) is a little isolated, a little different because there's a
difference between what the PARAB wanted and what the TDC
approved and what the staff recommends, and we can talk about that,
differently but it doesn't really impact to a great extent what you have
on 10(A).
And at your pleasure, ma'am, and the board's pleasure, we'll
handle these items whichever way you'd like, in whatever order.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I wanted to start off with 10(C), then I felt
that -- to tackle the budget, 10(A) should be the last thing after we've
settled all of these other things. That only seems to be right, and take
them in proper order. Then I would go to 10(D), then I would go to
10(B), and then we'll finish up with 10(A).
MR. MUDD: Okay. Is that the bo -- everybody -- I think I've
got nods to do that, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Item #10C
MAKE A DETERMINATION IF HIDEAWAY BEACH IS AN
ELIGIBLE CATEGORY A PROJECT FOR THE USE OF TDC
FUNDS BASED ON THE CURRENT APPROVED BCC POLICY,
DATED DECEMBER 16, 2003. THEN APPROVED OR DENY A
TDC CATEGORY "A" GRANT APPLICATIONS REQUESTED
BY THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND FOR THE
RENOURISHMENT AND REPLACEMENT OF TEMPORARY T-
GROINS ON HIDEAWAY BEACH, PROJECT 90502, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $4,457,000.00- ONE TIME COST OF $2.5M TO
121
April 13, 2004
STABILIZE THE BEACH WITH T-GROiNS FROM TDC FUNDS
AND THEN 50/50 COST SHARING WITH SPECIAL TAXING
DISTRICT FOR RENOURISHMENT OF HIDEAWAY BEACH-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: So we'll start with 10(C). 10(C) on the agenda is
make a determination of Hideaway Beach as an eligible category A
project for the use of TDC funds based on the current approved BCC
policy dated December 16, 2003, then approve or deny a TDC
category A grant application requested by the City of Marco Island for
the renourishment and replacement of temporary T-Groins on
Hideaway Beach, project 90502, in the amount of $4,457,000.
Mr. Jack Wert will present this particular item.
MR. WERT: Thank you, Chairman Fiala, County
Commissioners.
This item -- and I thought it might be helpful if we discussed at
least that part of your policy that does address this particular issue.
And as the policy states, the eligible beach area must have at
least one public access point from a public street, and number two, is
no more than one half mile from a beach park facility, public access
point, hotel/motel, or is a vital tourism area subject to abnormal
erosion, provided that if 80 percent -- if at least 80 percent of the
beach area is classified as eligible, otherwise ineligible gaps will be
deemed eligible.
That's the section of the policy that really deals with what we're
discussing on the Hideaway Beach project. And this particular area
currently does not have public street access, although there has been
one proposed as we have heard.
It -- and so from that point of view, plus the fact that at this point
in time there is no dedicated funding for that private sector, there has
been a taxing district proposed. The -- the City of Marco Council is
going to have their second reading of that, I believe, on the 19th of this
122
April 13, 2004
month, so -- that isn't in place yet.
So as we stand here today, that project for Hideaway is not
eligible under the present policy, and so that is why the staff is
recommending at this time, at least we would like to get that
determination, is it an eligible project from the board.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So in other words, if your questions were
answered as far as the funding for the pathway and the pathway itself,
then staff would change that recommendation; is that what you're
saying?
MR. WERT: I think the other piece of it, Commissioner, is --
related to that access point is, I think we also need to, from a board
point of view, accept that as public access from that public street.
As we all know, there needs to be a pathway developed down to
a beach area, and then there's some very environmentally sensitive
areas that need to be crossed. Actually you have to cross Little Clam
Pass twice.
So based on what we have heard in the past from DEP looking at
that area, it doesn't seem possible that they are going to be interested
in permitting any kind of a project like that, either crossing Clam Pass
-- in either place. You're going to have to go around mangroves and a
lot of things we would need to get through before that pathway could
even be a reality.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I did a lot of research on this, new
research that I've never done before, but for now I think we'll listen to
the public speakers.
MS. FILSON: We have eight public speakers. The first is Bruce
Anderson. He will be followed by David Somers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Jim? Commissioner Coletta asked if you
could put a map up so that people could see.
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman,
members of the commission. My name is Bruce Anderson from the
law firm of Roetzel and Andress, appearing on behalf of the Hideaway
123
April 13, 2004
Beach Association.
I beg your indulgence. Some of you may have heard this before,
but I'm not sure if Commissioner Halas has, and I need to make a
record today regarding the history of Hideaway Beach in Marco Island
and the beach accesses and what were traded.
In 1976 the county adopted an ordinance that required beach
access points to be provided every half mile along the Collier County
coast from Marco Island to the Lee County line. 1976 is also the year
that the Hideaway Beach PUD was first approved.
In September of 1979, the Hideaway Beach PUD was amended
to add land that abuts the county's Tigertail Beach Park. And among
the changes that were approved in that PUD is the following:
Section 9.7, beach access; in lieu of a 200-foot wide access point
location at the southeast comer of the property, the petitioner agrees to
improve and landscape a recreational facility recommended by the
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and approved by the county
commission.
The amount of improvements will be based on the appraisal,
agreed upon by the developer and county commission of the 200-foot
wide access strip within Hideaway Beach. Should the amount of
improvements not be agreed upon, the petitioner must dedicate and
improve the original beach access location at the southeast comer of
the property, end of quote.
The county and the developer reached an agreement that the
developer would construct a public boat launch facility on Marco
Island. That public facility was constructed and accepted by the
county and remains in public use today.
Property owners at Hideaway Beach provided for public access
almost 25 years ago when the county decided to provide public access
by boat in lieu of duplicating the beach access that already existed
next door at Tigertail Park.
The county commission approved that agreement based on the
124
April 13, 2004
recommendation of the then Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.
The public boat launch that was paid for by the Hideaway Beach
property owners is still in use today and is so popular and such a
money maker for the county that the county refused to give it up when
Marco Island became a city.
Now, some opponents of Hideaway try to poo-poo the
significance of this public boat ramp. I would suggest that those
opponents need to look in the comprehensive plan which ranks public
boat ramps as the number one priority for water dependent uses.
Hideaway's contribution of the public boat ramp is the gift that keeps
on giving.
I dare say that if that same choice came to this commission today,
you might be hard pressed to decide one way or the other either,
whether it was more important to have beach access or a public boat
ramp.
Marco Island, including Hideaway Beach was the first area of the
county to have its beaches renourished after the county commission
created the special taxing district for Marco beachfront properties.
Pursuant to state statute as a part of the renourishment, a new
public/private property line was established and platted in the public
records for the mean high water line that existed prior to
renourishment. This new property line is known as the Erosion
Control Line.
In 1989 and '90, 15-year permits were issued for Marco's initial
beach renourishment, and the DEP permit states, quote, thereafter,
hydrologically dredging material from the burrow areas at a frequency
and in the amounts to be determined by the erosion rate of the
renourished beaches, end of quote.
The permit authorizes long-term periodic maintenance. It was
clearly understood at the time by the then county commission and the
regulatory agencies that future nourishment would be needed in Marco
after completion of the original renourishment in 1991.
125
April 13, 2004
One year later, in 1992, voters approved a two percent tourist tax.
In 1995 that tax was increased to three percent, and the county sought
and received court approval to pay off the remaining Marco Island
beach renourishment bonds with tourist tax money. That payoff and
refinancing saved the county a lot of money, which was then used to
help pay for countywide beach renourishment of Vanderbilt Beach in
the City of Naples.
The propriety of using TDC funds to pay for beach
renourishment at Hideaway Beach was the subject of litigation when
the beach renourishment bond refinancing occurred.
The specific legal description of the Marco beachfront properties
at issue, including Hideaway Beach, were part of the court proceeding.
The case was appealed all the way to the Florida Supreme Court,
which unanimously found that the use of tourist taxes to fund beach
renourishment and erosion control on Marco's beaches met the
requirements of the state tourist development tax statute, and that
statute, which the Supreme Court quoted in their opinion, requires that
there be public access where such taxes are used for beach
renourishment.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Bruce, I hate to stop you, but I have to.
Do you -- it looks like you have a lot left there to go?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I do. There are some important points
that need to be -- need to be made, and this is focused solely on
Hideaway Beach, and I'm their designated legal representative.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't have a problem with it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. Go ahead.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
Since the Florida Supreme Court has already made the
determination that Hideaway Beach meets the public access
requirement of the state statute that authorizes the tourist tax in the
first place, the county is bound by that Supreme Court decision and
cannot redefine public access to exclude Hideaway Beach or the rest
126
April 13, 2004
of Marco Island.
The county approved in 1997 an Inlet Management Study for the
Big Marco and Capri Pass inlet management. It called for installation
ofT-Groins and for renourishment of the beach.
Temporary T-Groins were approved and allowed for a five-year
period, and if successful, they were to be replaced by permanent
T-Groins; however, over the following two- to three-year period, the
county allowed the temporary T-Groins, made of sandbags, to rupture
and deteriorate to the point that DEP would not accept the monitoring
report, and they extended the monitoring period for another year.
Because the county was negligent and failed to comply with
maintenance requirements of the permit, implementation of the
management study and the permanent T-Groins was delayed.
The 1997 study also called for data to be gathered to provide a
long-term solution to Hideaway and their erosion problems. The
temporary T-Groins have been successful, and the time is right now to
begin the renourishment called for seven years ago.
Now is not the time for the county to walk off the job, especially
where the property owners of Hideaway Beach have stepped forward
to tax themselves and contribute a new public beach access point and
to contribute to the cost of renourishment and erosion control
structures along Big Marco Pass.
The Hideaway Beach Association has been very supportive of
the county enhancing or supplementing the existing public access
through the replacement of sand or construction of a boardwalk in
erosion hot spots lying between Sand Dollar Island and Hideaway
Beach. They provided and paid for a preliminary feasibility report,
and the county commission's previously authorized money to be spent,
but then put it on hold pending an environmental study.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Bruce, are you just about finished?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. I do want to point out that the FDEP
letter that's in your agenda packet, far from slamming the door shut on
127
April 13, 2004
the county, it says, department staff recommend that the applicant
eliminate the placement of fill material seaward of the mangrove
shoreline and investigate an alternative location for the construction of
a pedestrian walkway that would avoid and minimize impacts to sea
grasses, mangroves, and shore bird habitat.
Lastly, I'd just point out that the erosion at Hideaway Beach, it's
now landward of the Erosion Control Line. And pursuant to section
161.211, Florida Statutes, Collier County has an obligation to
maintain the beach up to the Erosion Control Line, or if the county
fails to do that, then affected property owners can petition the
governor and cabinet to direct you to restore it.
My client is willing to cooperate and has tried to be cooperative,
and we appreciate your time.
And I'd also point out that the County Attorney's Office has
previously issued four opinions in the last four years that funding of
Hideaway Beach was legal. They had a recent opinion issued this past
fall that stated that it was questionable and you ought to seek an
attorney general's opinion on whether to spend TDC money to build a
parking garage.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I got a couple of questions I'd like
to ask.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Number one is, we -- it says, PUD
was -- stated that it was -- came about in 1976; is that correct;?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir, the first one.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And do you know what our
population of this county was at that point in time?
MR. ANDERSON: No, I don't have any idea.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would assume it's not the 300,000
people that we have today, okay?
The other thing is, you say the property owners gave this -- the
beach access and the boat access. Was it really the property owners,
128
April 13, 2004
or was it the developer in the PUD?
MR. ANDERSON: The developer in the PUD, who was --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then it's --
MR. ANDERSON: And they paid for it when they bought their
homesites.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well -- but it's still the idea that it
wasn't the property owners. It was the developer of the PUD.
MR. ANDERSON: The developer owned the proper.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly. But he's the one that, in
the covenants of the PUD, decided to give this information or this up
to the county, the boat access and the beach access; is that correct?
MR. ANDERSON: The county and the developer agreed upon
it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I just want to get that clear.
The Erosion Control Line, I didn't think -- County Attorney, do
we have any obligations in regards to holding the Erosion Control
Line? I would think that if people build that close to the water, that
they would have some concerns there themselves that they would have
to take care of that; am I correct in what I'm stating or not?
MR. WEIGEL: Commissioner, I'll have to look at the statute that
Mr. Anderson is citing there, but I know in the past, historically, that
structures that are built close to the Erosion Control Line or the
Coastal Construction Setback Line, and to which there is an accretion
or loss of shoreline material next to that, has been a problem of the
property owner for having constructed to build a -- or beyond a
construction or Erosion Control Line that has existed at a particular
point in time.
Mr. Anderson has indicated that an Erosion Control Line was set
at the time of the beach renourishment of the Marco project in 1991.
Probably to respond more specifically, I'd have to see just where that
129
April 13, 2004
was in juxtaposition with the Hideaway Beach--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can we have an answer on that
sometime today?
MR. WEIGEL: Sure. We'll have it for you shortly.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, appreciate that.
MS. ASHTON: Commissioner, Ron Hovell has a little bit more
information on that. There are segments of Hideaway Beach where
the Erosion Control Line is set, but then there's another portion.
If you want to show them on the overhead, I think that might be
of assistance. And generally when you do go forward with the beach
renourishment project, the Erosion Control Line is set pursuant to the
state requirements as part of the permit.
Ron is telling me that the -- part of it was for temporary T-Groins
and that's why it wasn't reset at the time.
Did you have more information to provide?
MR. WEIGEL: I'll get back to you rather quickly on that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And the other question I
have is, what responsibility has the county got in regards to these
temporary T-Groins? Do we have an obligation in regards to removing
these temporary T-Groins and putting in permanent T-Groins, or just
-- where do we stand on that? Is that part of the equation as we're -- as
this is unfolding in front of us today?
MR. WEIGEL: Who's going to answer?
MR. HOVELL: For the record, Ron Hovell, public utilities
engineering department.
The permit that allowed for the construction of the temporary
T-Groins was due to expire in March of 2004. When we applied for
the permit for the permanent project, we also asked that that permit be
extended.
It doesn't specifically say that we have to remove them, but I
think it's implied that at the end of that permit life, that those
temporary T-Groins will have to be removed.
130
April 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then what will happen once
we remove them?
MR. HOVELL: Well, if we remove them and don't replace
them, then naturally erosion will continue unchecked.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And do we have an obligation in
that arena?
MR. HOVELL: Not that I'm aware of.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That's -- I guess we're
trying to get clarification on that from the --
MR. HOVELL: Right. I heard a Florida statute thrown around.
I just know that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
office that I deal with related to Erosion Control Lines -- as a matter of
fact, we just went through the process and had the hearing at the end
of January, 2004, to extend the Erosion Control Line up on the Royal
Marco Point area pending the trucking we had been doing as well as
this proposed project.
But in any event, anytime I've asked them the question about
what happens if someone doesn't maintain the beach in an area where
an Erosion Control Line is established, the answer that I've typically
been given is that the state may, at their choice, vacate the established
Erosion Control Line.
But to me that implies that it's -- the beach has eroded closer--
further inland than the Erosion Control Line, and in essence, even
more land would become state-owned property. So I'm not sure, you
know, I know the right answers as far as the statutes go, but --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas, before -- just to
answer your question, that was the research I did, and I called Ken
Humiston who has been monitoring our beaches all this time,
especially Hideaway. And so I asked him what would happen if-- I
said, first of all, would we have to remove the temporary T-Groins.
He said most likely because, you know, they won't be monitored
anymore. That's a state requirement. We would have to remove them.
131
April 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I said, so this then would put in the new--
or the permanent T-Groins. He said, yes. I said, if we don't put in
permanent T-Groins, what would happen. And he said -- he said, that
beach would erode very quickly.
And I said, and what happens to the beach down the way.
Because now we're talking about the county property, Tigertail. We
all talk about access. I said, what happens to Tigertail. He said,
everything is interrelated. He said, it will also erode all the way down
the line.
I asked him then -- oh, then he inserted there -- I did not ask this
question. He said, and if there was a major storm event, it could
deeply impact the whole coastline because these T-Groins, these
permanent T-Groins, and the renourishment did not take place.
And I was quite interested in that because that has never come
forward to us before, and that's directly from Ken Humiston.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The T-Groins is probably one
subject, and then beach access and beach sand is another-- another
part of the equation. And I can see maybe where we have an
obligation to see if we can -- can control the erosion maybe with
temporary or -- with permanent T-Groins. But when it comes to beach
access and beach renourishment, then we get into a whole different
area in regards to --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- does everybody have access to
this?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now, let me -- let me reply to this.
As Ken Humiston said, if we don't renourish this beach, if we
don't put these permanent T-Groins in and renourish it, we won't have
Tigertail anymore where we do have public access, by the way. That
public access is going to do us no good.
And by the way, already -- and, you know I love the
132
April 13, 2004
Conservancy and I love the environment, and so I don't mean this in
any derogatory way, but the Conservancy is now encouraging their
members to come out to the bird sanctuary at Tigertail, because that's
what it's becoming because we haven't been fixing Hideaway.
And I think we have to take a look at this in the bigger picture.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We're not just talking about beach access
here. We're talking about a whole coastline. And if we don't meet our
responsibilities as county commissioners, then we are eroding that
whole coastline because we're going to stick our head in the sand and
say, well, if you don't have beach access -- you know, we've got to
think of the whole picture.
Frank, if it were on your -- on your beaches, I would do the same
thing. If I saw your beaches eroding, you better believe I would -- I
would make sure, whether there was parking at the end of your
accesses or not.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, we have a problem there, and
so we're trying to make sure that we balance both -- around the whole
county here, so that no -- we also have beach access in the northern
area and we also have beach access in the city, which we do, and we
have beach access at Marco Island.
And I'm not here to pick on Marco Island, but I'm telling you that
if you don't have access to the beaches, it's not our responsibility -- we
may have one part of the responsibility, and that is to put in temporary
or permanent T-Groins, as I said earlier. But when it comes to
renourishing a beach, I don't believe that it's -- if the citizens do not
have access to that, I don't believe that we should be involved in
renourishing the beach.
And once you start that, then everybody else along the whole
coastline, including where I live, that -- where there's private access,
then we're going to have to take care of that renourishment also.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Let's go on to our speakers.
133
April 13, 2004
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is David Somers. He will be
followed by Eric Brechnitz.
MR. SOMERS: I'll just hand out my comments in case I don't
get through them all.
As you know, the Tourist Development Council funding policy
provides that -- the TDC funds to be used for beach renourishment,
beach maintenance, beach park facilities, and improving beach access
acquisitions.
The beach area on the north shore of Marco Island abutting the
south side of Big Marco Pass and adjacent to Hideaway Beach has
been classified as a critical beach erosion area by DEP, Offices of
Beaches and Coastal Systems in April of 2002.
The beach area is one of the five critical erosion areas in Collier
County according to the DEP report.
On January 9th, 2001, the BCC awarded TDC, category A funds
for an additional temporary T-Groins based on the finding that the
project served a public purpose.
At that meeting the County Attorney's Office rendered an opinion
that there was public access to the Hideaway Beach area through
Tigertail Beach Park.
Moreover, there have been at least four different county attorney
opinions issued over the last three years or so that the use of tourist tax
money to fund beach renourishment and erosion control structures at
Hideaway Beach is legal.
The county has implemented only a part of the recommendations
of this study that was done for the inlet management of Big Marco
Pass and Capri Pass by approving the above-mentioned temporary
T-Groins.
Among other recommendations, the county study recommended
for a long-term solution for the critical erosion problems at Hideaway.
It should also be mentioned that the erosion has occurred
landward of the Erosion Control Line established on the previously
134
April 13, 2004
renourished portion of Hideaway Beach in 1991. That original ECL
line was part of major renourishment that occurred that the Marco
residents paid for initially and that the TDC ultimately paid off the
bond when that was done in 1995.
If the county fails to maintain the beach, property owners may go
to the governor and cabinet to have them direct the county to restore
the beach up to the point of the Erosion Control Line.
The current request before the BCC for the renourishment of the
beach area adjacent to Hideaway is consistent with the attempt --
intent of the current funding policy, responds to the critical erosion
issues identified in the above-mentioned DEP report, and the county's
own inlet management study relating to Hideaway Beach and helps
satisfy the county's obligation relating to the erosion of certain
portions of Hideaway Beach landward of the Erosion Control Line.
Furthermore, by an aggregate vote of 14-2, the CAC and the
TDC have determined that the Hideaway project qualifies for funding
under the funding policy, and that the public beach access, which the
Hideaway Beach HOA has committed to grant, satisfies the first
eligibility criterium in the funding policy.
And with respect to the second criteria, the Hideaway Beach
Association area has been declared a vital tourist area subject to
abnormal erosion by both the CAC, the TDC, and the City of Marco
Island.
With respect to the renourishment requirements of the public
beach access, the BCC should be reminded that in 1979 on the
recommendation of the county parks and recreation advisory, the
county exchanged the 200-foot wide beach access at Hideaway for
construction and landscaping of the county's Caxambas Boat Ramp
park.
For the county to say that there is no current public access to the
Hideaway Beach, again, not only ignores the commitment Hideaway
has offered to grant a pathway from Spinnaker Drive to the previous
135
April 13, 2004
county attorney's opinions that public access exists through Tigertail
Park, it also unfairly and arbitrarily penalizes Hideaway Beach
property owners for exchanging one point of beach access for another.
In light of the overwhelming support of the CAC and the TDC
and the City of Marco Island for this project, the criticality of the
erosion problems, as identified by the DEP and the county's inlet
management study, and the commitments offered by the Hideaway
Beach's HOA to provide a pathway as a public access point and to
provide a mechanism for sharing in the cost of the project, there is no
valid reason not to approve this application.
Indeed, there are adequate funds in the budget to approve this
application and accomplish all the other major beach work and meet
the requirements of the funding policy as to reserves and allocations
for beach access and facilities.
The proposed access point would be coming down -- and this is
Spinnaker Drive here (indicating), and this would be coming -- this is
Little Clam Pass, the beginning of Little Clam Pass. This area has
been designated as being the least impacted on the environmental
situation that is there. It's in an area that has already been improved
upon with a fence line that has been there. This is the other Little
Clam Pass that comes out into the water here, which, again, a small
footbridge may be needed over that particular area.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, David.
Next speaker.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Erik Brechnitz. I'm sure
that's incorrect.
MR. BRECHNITZ: No, it's not.
MS. FILSON: Oh, good. And he'll be followed by John
Solverson.
MR. BRECHNITZ: For the record, Commissioners, my name is
Erik Brechnitz. I reside at 2000 Royal Marco Way, Marco Island,
Florida. I'm on the board of the Hideaway Beach Association.
136
April 13, 2004
I want to, first of all, thank the commissioners that I met with
over the past two weeks about this issue. They received a delegation
from Hideaway graciously and listened attentively to our comments,
and for that I am grateful, and I appreciate it.
I think I mentioned to you that I'm a little nervous on this side of
the lectern. Prior to coming to Marco Island to reside, I was the
mayor of a city in Decatur, Illinois, and on its council for 14 years,
and so I'm much more used to hearing the argument from your side of
the lectern instead of mine.
And I think what makes Decatur, Illinois, famous in Naples
circles is this is -- that's the city that gave John Dunnuck his start in his
professional career. John was the -- an employee in the parks and
recreation division in Decatur, Illinois, so there is a -- there is a
connection.
You've heard from our previous speakers that there have been
two agreements that were reached long before any of us were involved
in Collier County government. The first was that Tigertail Park was
given to the county in exchange for what would be normal access
rights to beaches, and the second agreement was the fact that the
Hideaway PUD granted -- or paid for Caxambas Park Boat Ramp in
exchange for 200 feet of access.
These are issues that the county desired at the time. They were
initiated and approved by county government. And as much as you
might like to forget about -- that those deals were made, in fact they
were, and the credibility of previous county boards is at stake unless
those agreements are not (sic) upheld.
Lots of times I read documents that I wished previous councils
had not made. But nevertheless, there is an obligation and a
commitment to live up to previous contractual agreements.
Because of all those agreements, the county now wants to use
access as a method of excluding Hideaway from beach renourishment.
Beach renourishment occurred at Hideaway for 10 years primarily as
137
April 13, 2004
a result of us -- of Marco Island giving up their MSTU in exchange for
the obligation on the part of Collier County that these beaches would
be maintained, and so they were for 10 years.
And then last year, there was a language change which seemed to
be designed for the sole purpose of excluding Hideaway Beach from
being renourished and totally ignoring previous contracts initiated by
Collier County.
And the question that comes to our mind is, when is a deal a
deal?
Recently advisory committees that Collier County has appointed
for the specific purpose of advising them on beach matters voted
overwhelmingly to include the northern beaches of Marco in their
renourishment budget and opined that Marco Island's northern beaches
adjacent to Hideaway were, indeed, eligible for funding.
Hideaway, as a consequence, has voted to grant an access to the
county and provide beach access from a public street, which is
precisely what's required by your policy for a low use beach. And I
might add that the erosion of Hideaway continues as we speak. The
storms of the last two days have done significant damage.
In yesterday's storm, water washed well over the mangroves into
the vegetation areas bordering Hideaway property causing significant
damage.
As I said, in an effort to satisfy the concerns of the county, a
sincere effort and -- to be able to qualify for this renourishment, the
Hideaway membership voted 79 and a half percent to provide beach
access on our property from a public street.
It is disingenuous to say by the staff that there is still no access
simply because we have to cross Little Clam Pass to get to the beach
adjacent to Hideaway property. Little Clam Pass is a very small
tributary. I have pictures if you're interested.
At the high tide, it's about a foot high. At low tide, it barely
covers your feet. Most beach walkers like to walk in the water
138
April 13, 2004
anyway. This is not a big deal to cross.
Secondly, they would have you believe that technically there is
no access, because as of yet we haven't given it.
I will tell you that in the last three weeks there has been a diligent
effort made to sit down and meet with county staff. Phone calls have
been made, emails have been sent. We have been unable to reach a
convenient meeting date with county staff. We have been told that
they were not available until after this meeting today. And it's real
difficult to give somebody access when you can't sit down and talk to
them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. I appreciate --
MR. BRECHNITZ: I have one more issue.
Additionally, the special dependent tax district has been brought
before the Marco Island City Council, was approved 7-0 as a funding
mechanism for our part of the beach renourishment project. We
intend to use that vehicle in that fashion. We intend to issue bonds,
levy ad valorem taxes, subject to a successful referendum.
The county gov -- the city government has oversight of that
special dependent district. They're responsible for approving our
budget, they appoint our commissioners, and they have to approve any
bond issue that we might intend to float.
I will tell you that we are sincerely trying to comply with your
concerns and the issue of qualifying for beach renourishment.
In our quest to do that, it has become apparent to some of us that,
perhaps, this issue isn't about access at all, and, perhaps, it's not about
bathrooms and it's not about parking. It could well be about money,
about who gets it and who doesn't get it, but that isn't what it should
be.
It should be about honoring commitments, it should be about
fairness. It should be about a level playing field. It should not be
about changing rules to exclude one area in order to benefit another,
and I would hope that after you hear the rest of the speakers from
139
April 13, 2004
Marco Island, that you will decide that the facts have persuaded you
that Marco's request is legally sound and morally just. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is John Solverson. He will be
followed by John Arceri.
DR. SOLVERSON: Members of the commission, I truly hope
you realize -- members of the Collier County Board of
Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to address you on the
critical topic of improving funds for the renourishment of the beaches
adjacent to Hideaway Beach community.
My name is Dr. John Solverson, and I am the current president of
Hideaway Beach. I do not intend to discuss the important topics that
have already been clearly defined to you. I hope to persuade you to
approve these funds for the renourishment because it is the right, the
proper, and the humane thing to do.
Marco Island and Naples community are two different entities
from the perspective of the beaches. Marco is a much newer
community and was laid out differently than Naples. Historically,
Marco Island with its beaches were designed, laid out, and ultimately
approved by the Collier County government.
Unlike Naples, that approval stipulated that periodic access
points to the beach were not necessary if a large residence beach was
provided along with a large county-owned public park at Tigertail and
a large county-owned interior park known as Mackle Park.
Collier County government also stipulated that the access to the
beach adjacent to Hideaway is not required if the developers of
Hideaway paid for a boat ramp presently known as the Caxambas
Boat Ramp. This boat ramp facility, paid for by Hideaway Beach, is
still owned, operated by Collier County, and the county has been
generating income from that facility for many years.
In the late 1980s the beaches of Marco Island became severely
eroded, resulting in hardly any walkable beach with sand and seawater
140
April 13, 2004
entering condominium pools.
Then a bond issue was passed and a major beach renourishment
was completed in 1990 that proved to be most successful. Hideaway
Beach was included in that bond issue, but Hideaway received only a
very small portion of sand. If Hideaway had received a better
renourishment, Hideaway would not be in the present critical state.
After two -- three to four years, that bond issue was dissolved and
paid for by a newly established TDC fund. That Marco Island beach
renourishment project then became a TDC project, and Hideaway was
part of that original TDC renourishment project.
Members of the commission, I truly hope you realize in -- the
present critical status of Hideaway Beach. Recently water from the
Gulf and sand during storms was deposited in our residents' pools.
Saltwater flowed on into our community killing vegetation with fish
from the Gulf found in our roadside drainage swales.
A residence two blocks from the beach lost most of his shrubbery
and vegetation due to the saltwater. In one area water during high tide
splashed against the homes of the residences. Even during yesterday's
high winds, salty gulf waters were entering Hideaway causing further
damage and destruction.
Hideaway is in a desperate and critical condition. If
renourishment is not immediately approved, the state may elect to
have the temporary groins removed, and the deterioration and
destruction will become even more critical.
Hideaway has attempted to be as cooperative as possible. We are
working with the City of Marco Island to establish a special dependent
tax district so that we may fund our portion of the renourishment
project. Our members have overwhelmingly approved the granting of
an easement as required by the county policy to provide access from a
public street.
The Hideaway board of directors worked long and diligent hours
to promote that easement resulting in an 80 percent approval vote
141
April 13, 2004
from our membership. We've made attempts to contact the county
staff to discuss that easement, but we haven't.
The Hideaway Beach community is one of the largest taxpayers
on Marco Island and one of the larger taxpayers in Collier County.
Certainly there are many worthwhile projects for TDC funding, but it
is a matter of priorities and a matter of politics where the money goes.
I am earnestly and sincerely appealing to you, members of the
Collier County Board of Commissioners, to approve the funds for the
renourishment of the beach adjacent to Hideaway. Hideaway Beach is
in a critical condition and desperately needs your assistance.
Please do the right thing, the humane thing, and approve this
critically needed funding for Hideaway and for Marco Island.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is John Arceri. He will be
followed by Bill Moss.
MR. ARCERI: Good afternoon, Commissioners, once again.
My name is John Arceri, representing City of Marco Island. I'm also a
member of the coastal -- of your Coastal Advisory Committee.
I just want to make a couple of comments on our request, the
city's request for the funding, and then a couple of comments about
staffs report to you as far as some disagreements we have on some of
the facts they state.
First of all, this northern section of Hideaway, not all of
Hideaway but the northern section, is a sector that we think has got to
be renourished. It is the last reusable beach -- usable beach on the
north shore of Marco Island.
Sand Dollar Island, as you saw on that picture over there, is
basically shut off most of Tigertail Beach, as well as a halfa mile
north of Tigertail into Hideaway as really usable beaches.
So the only thing we really have on the north shore of Marco
Island is this mile and a half to two mile section that we're considering
renourishing on the north side of Hideaway Beach.
142
April 13, 2004
That section, that beach on the north side, is going to be really
the only swimmable beach that people can walk from Tigertail north
to that beach.
Also right off of Hideaway, right off of that section, there's an
island called Coconut Island, which has been a huge tourist attraction
for boaters, where -- most of the rental boats are on the north side
there, and they go to Coconut Island.
If you read in the papers recently, Coconut Island is split in half
and disappearing. And many of the boaters I've talked to would like
to go to Hideaway by boat, but they're not going to go to a three-foot
beach or a five-foot beach. We're convinced that if that beach is
renourished to the full -- to full width, you will see a lot more boating
tourism there than before.
Marco Island has 74 percent of the hotel rooms in the county that
contribute to the TDC funding, and we contribute about 30 percent to
the county's TDC funds, with no funding for Hideaway Beach at all as
staff has recommended.
Marco would be contributing 30 percent and getting back about
six percent in the 1 O-year plan. Even with partial funding, as was
recommended by the TDC and the CAC, Marco would only be getting
back 14 percent and providing 30 percent funding, but we don't have a
problem with that, because as long as it takes care of our urgent needs
-- and this project for Hideaway Beach, the northern section of Marco,
is the only major project Marco Island is asking for in the 1 O-year plan
that we put together.
So even though it's -- we're only going to get back 14 percent and
even though many of our residents feel that that's not what the
referendum has said, we're okay with that and we would support that.
We've worked very hard to develop a policy that made sense, that
was fair, and that was balanced. And despite prior agreements that
were mentioned before with the county, the residents of Hideaway
Beach under the recommended plan would have to pay 29 percent of
143
April 13, 2004
not only this project cost, but all of the future maintenance costs,
they'd have to pay 29 percent of that.
They were also forced to put in a pathway from a private --
public street through their property to the beach area. Now, in the
staff report there's a mention that there's no method to calculate that 29
percent, but that number came from staff as a number that they felt
was the reasonable number for cost sharing under this designation.
They were able to come up with a similar calculation for Pelican
Bay. I'll remind you that Pelican Bay, which has never been funded
by TDC funds for any renourishment, is now getting a large portion of
funding from TDC with a cost sharing formula that was put together
by staff, and, of course, Pelican Bay is buried in the consent as part of
the Naples package with no discussion at all, yet the focus continues
to be on Hideaway.
The pathway issue. Both the TDC and the CAC felt that this
pathway that's being proposed, although not ideal, was the only
reasonable pathway that would have minimal impact on
environmental issues within that area, on private property, as well as a
location from a public street that had available parking lots if the
county so desired to do that.
The CAC met on that pathway for several hours last week and
said that that pathway, after considering everything on a vote by 7-1,
that that pathway met the intent of the policy that they helped develop
for you.
Now, staff on that pathway has made two comments. They said,
well, it's fine you have the pathway, but you can't walk across Little
Clam Pass. Now, Little Clam Pass is within that half a mile north of
Tigertail, which is eligible for full funding, completely, but it's not an
area that we think ought to be renourished.
Clam Pass itself, as you could have seen in some of those
pictures, can be crossed. I crossed it at almost high tide without a
problem. The staff comments that the bridge that we're talking about,
144
April 13, 2004
a small bridge to go across Clam Pass to help access by walkers has
been rejected by the Department of Environmental Protection of
Florida. That's not true. We've never made that request before. It's a
factual incorrection.
Second, is the fact that there's a 700-foot section of beach area in
order to get to the northern section that, under high tide conditions, is
hard to pass. I've again, passed that on low and medium tides, and the
reason that's a difficult spot is because of the negligence of the county
over the last couple years in renourishing that area to keep it wide.
And the FDEP has not ruled. I just have another minute or two,
if that's okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Maybe we could take a minute or two off
the next person.
MR. ARCERI: That's fine. I think, Bill, you'd agree with that?
Yeah, he would agree with that.
The FDEP did not say that the -- the putting in of renourishment
was going to be against their policies at this point, and we did put
together -- CAC, TDC, recommended for you an environmental study
for renourishing that small section. I haven't seen it on the agenda, so
I guess it's been dropped.
I was -- on the budget. I'll talk about the budget later, but the
TDC and CAC budget that they submitted to you fully funds all of the
projects over the next 10 years with all of the reimbursements
included, meets all of the policy requirements on reserves, and it
includes funding of the Vanderbilt parking garage. We did not see a
problem with the budget here.
I was very surprised that Jack Wert opened this up by saying
Hideaway Beach is not eligible because it doesn't have parking and it's
not a half a mile from parking, bathrooms, or hotels. That definition is
for a high-use beach, which requires no sharing of funds.
We're not -- no one has ever talked about Hideaway being a
high-use beach. That's a totally incorrect opening statement to you.
145
April 13, 2004
Hideaway is a low-use beach.
CAC and TDC have never considered anything but a low-use
beach, and that requires the designation of a vital tourism area subject
to abnormal erosion. No question that the city, the TDC, and the CAC
all feel it meets that designation for reasons I mentioned.
It requires the one public access point. This half a mile doesn't
apply at all to this, to a low-use beach, and it requires cost sharing.
The county consultants, the state agencies have all said, without
question -- and it's not an argument by anybody -- that this is an area
that is excessively corroding, it has impact on adjacent beaches.
In summary, I've got to tell you, I am disappointed in the process
here. I had hoped that communications between us and staff would
have been different. We couldn't meet with the staff-- the city
couldn't meet with the staff prior to this meeting. There were no
indications of staff's recommendations to the CAC last Thursday. So
we're a little bit concerned about the process not really improving
much on communications.
The spending plan that we've laid out, the TDC and the CAC,
we've spent many hours on this thing. We think it's a technically
sound balanced approach to managing our beaches. And I'd hate to
see us go the route of continued conflict, continued lack of public
confidence in this whole process.
Thanks very much for your time. I will have more to say about
the budget later on.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Frank, did you want to ask him a
question?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll wait till all the speakers are
done.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay.
MR. ARCERI: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Bill Moss. He will be
followed by Nancy Payton.
146
April 13, 2004
MR. MOSS: Madam Chair, Commissioners, good afternoon. It's
nice to be here again today. I have left my notes behind me,
recognizing that some of the speakers have really said much of what I
would like to convey to you.
But on behalf of the Marco Island City Council, I would like to
urge you to support this project as eligible for category A funding, and
I say that more so because it's a matter of fairness and equity and one
that our city has been working on for many, many years.
I recognize that you today have dealt with this issue over the last
couple of years, but I can tell you that for the six years that I've been
with the city and since its incorporation, we have been taking one step
at a time forward to advance this project. We stood in line. We were
patient. We have tried at every step to meet concerns expressed by the
Board of County Commissioners and by the staff.
You not may feel that we've reached your level of expectation,
but I can tell you with great sincerity that we have tried very hard to
do so.
When we became aware that public access was an issue, we went
to Hideaway Beach and said, this is it. If you want our support, you
have to make public access available. This is something that our
county commission wants, and this is something that we want to
support.
When the beach -- when it came time to fund last year, it was
determined that there should be a policy on beach renourishment, so
we worked with you. You started, I think, last June, you designated
your committees to work over the summertime and present to you a
beach policy, and we worked very hard with your committees.
All the committees have worked through that process, and you've
adopted that process. Again, we participated with genuine sincerity,
okay?
Our city council recognized that this particular beach was going
to require local funding. The Hideaway Beach Homeowners'
147
April 13, 2004
Association is on record as committing $1.3 million toward this $4.6
million project, okay?
Our city council has adopted, on first reading, the creation of a
dependent special tax district. I assure you that if I thought it was of
concern for this particular meeting, we would have adopted that
ordinance by emergency so it would have been in place by today. But
there is 100 percent of support by our city council, and there's no
doubt in my -- in my mind that this will be adopted next Monday on a
7-0 vote.
We were asked by staff to develop a contract outlining the terms
and conditions of the funding and of the responsibilities, and we
prepared the first contract about two months ago and submitted a
revision to your staff about two weeks ago.
I think we've tried hard, we've waited our mm. We think it's a
badly needed project. We think this is an area that's vital to tourism,
as determine by our city council in December and by your Coastal
Advisory Committee and your Tourist Development Council. We
would like your sincerest consideration to fund this project.
And thank you so much. We know it's a tough job for you. We
know you have a lot of-- lot of other issues that you have to deal with
and a lot of projects to fund. We just feel like, that we've been waiting
a long, long time, and it's our mm, and it seems like just as we're about
there, somebody's going to ask us to step to the back of the line, and
we think we've been patient and we've tried our best, and we would
appreciate your support. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Nancy Payton. She will be
followed by your final speaker, Brad Cornell.
MS. PAYTON: Good afternoon, Nancy Payton representing the
Florida Wildlife Federation, and we are opposed to the proposed
beach access pathway. And in the executive summary, I'll emphasize
what's written here, which incidentally was prepared and approved by
148
April 13, 2004
10 of your staff members, so it has gotten quite a bit of discussion.
It is quite unlikely that given the planned access point off
Spinnaker Drive, that this project can reasonably be considered to be
eligible for TDC funding under the present policy.
The FDEP, that's the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, has already indicated that a permit to bridge Clam Pass and
build a boardwalk replacement sand in the mangrove area is quite
unlikely to occur, and the DEP letter was included, and I'll quote from
that to get it in the record.
In summary, the department staff recommend that the applicant
eliminate the placement of fill material seaward of the mangrove
shoreline and investigate an alternative location for construction of a
pedestrian walkway that would avoid and minimize impacts to sea
grasses, mangroves, and shore bird habitat.
And that recommendation of DEP was the location of the
walkway landward to avoid impacts to submerged aquatic resources
and inner tidal mangrove habitat. In other words, they were
suggesting a connection from Tigertail that followed streets and was
not along the beach, and a boardwalk that went from a road to the
beach was not what they were suggesting here.
My recollection from last year's discussion -- and there has been
a great deal of discussion about the connection between Hideaway and
Tigertail, or this particular proposed new pathway -- is that it was
contingent upon an environmental study which was not funded last
year by the DEP -- or not funded, excuse me, by Collier County, and it
seems as though this whole pathway is contingent upon permitting and
the environmental permitting.
The executive summary does not include a discussion of habitat
impacts under the Growth Management Plan. Conservation element
requires incompatible activities be directed away from listed species.
And of the 10 staff people that looked at this proposal, none were from
the natural resources department.
149
April 13, 2004
Listed species, including plovers, been documented using the
Little Clam Pass area, and this documentation includes photographic
evidence. In other words, if this pathway works and people come
across the pathway or the boardwalk and then want to travel up to
Hideaway Beach, it's very difficult for them to do that.
In the past it's been proposed to renourish the beach area and also
to bridge the Little Clam Pass, which DEP and other environmental
agencies have been opposed to, and we continue to be opposed to.
Before the county invests in this proposal, we think the
environmental study needs to be done, and looking not at the impacts
to that need area, but to the entire Tigertail, Big Marco Pass, critical
wildlife area.
And this is kind of an off-the-wall proposal, but I'll put it on the
table for consideration or discussion or just rolling of eyes, but here's a
possibility.
In evaluating the cost over time to renourish this beach -- which
consultants have repeatedly said that almost as soon as you put the
sand on there, it goes away, so we're going to be pumping millions and
millions of dollars in sand in this area, it's just going to be a continual
process -- that when the county evaluates the cost of this project to
renourish Hideaway Beach, that Florida Wildlife suggests that you
look at the cost that it would be to buy out those properties that are
threatened by the eroding riverbank or beach area, because in the long
run, that may be a better investment of public moneys than continuing
to pump sand on the beach. Just a thought.
Also, we'd like to receive the documentation that supports that --
without renourishing Hideaway Beach, that Tigertail is, indeed,
threatened, or impacted or that critical wildlife area is, and we're not
sure that -- we're not convinced yet because we haven't seen the
documentation -- that improvements to Hideaway Beach are
improvements to the wildlife habitat at Tigertail.
And that's our comments. We remain opposed to any
150
April 13, 2004
improvements that -- or any access that impacts wildlife habitat in that
area, and we support DEP's statements.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Payton, thanks for being
here today. I'm not familiar with habitat in this area. Can you explain
to me what kind of species, listed species, are in this area?
MS. PAYTON: Well, the one that is -- the one that's of greatest
discussion has been the piping plover, and the piping plo -- piping
plover has been documented photographically using this area of Little
Clam Pass.
There also have been concerns raised by the county natural
resources department of making improvements or renourishing the
area between Tigertail and Hideaway Beach, proposed renourishment
of beach areas, putting fill.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think that's being
proposed with this.
MS. PAYTON: Well, if people are going to come across this
proposed boardwalk, they're having -- they're going to have difficulty
going up into Hideaway Beach. And in the past it's always been
proposed, and we heard it today, about bridging Little Clam Pass.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Uh-huh.
MS. PAYTON: Which would require a permit and raise the
same issues that were raised recently by DEP.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you feel an elevated
crosswalk is not -- would be against our Growth Management Plan or
any kind of improvements on this beach because of the piping plover?
MS. PAYTON: Or other listed species. It may. We haven't had
that study. You haven't funded the study to evaluate the
environmental impacts.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What study? You mean for all
the listed species?
MS. PAYTON: No. When this was discussed last year --
151
April 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For Tigertail?
MS. PAYTON: -- for connecting Tigertail and Hideaway so that
there could be public access and they could be justified in receiving
TDC moneys, the conclusion of the discussion was that there would
be an environmental study -- I think the amount was $25,000 -- to
evaluate the environmental impacts of improving the pedestrian
connection between Tigertail and Hideaway Beach.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it would be against our
Growth Management Plan in -- if there is listed species there?
MS. PAYTON: Potentially it could be.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. PAYTON: But we haven't seen the study. I think that it is,
and we're raising those concerns. But we would support and we did
support an independent study that would look at the impacts to not
only that area but the entire Tigertail area. And I don't see how you
can oppose a study to get down to the facts and -- so we can stop
bartering back and forth. It seems a modest investment, $25,000, to
do the study.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not arguing that.
MS. PAYTON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Next speaker.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Brad Comell.
MR. CORNELL: Hello, Commissioners. Brad Cornell here on
behalf of Collier County Audubon Society.
And I'm not here to talk about the specifics of the T-Groins or
renourishing Hideaway Beach particularly except as public access to
that beach is being discussed and where that access would or could use
the connection between Tigertail and Hideaway that we were just
discussing, and you were just discussing with Nancy Payton.
Any connection is, I think, a bad idea, and Collier County
Audubon Society is very much opposed to improving or changing the
dynamics or the characteristics of that shore habitat between Tigertail
152
April 13, 2004
Beach and Hideaway Beach.
As was noted by Mr. Wert, DEP, Florida Department of
Protection, is also very skeptical, and you have that letter in your-- in
your agenda package -- about any such access improvements, whether
they be a boardwalk along the mangrove fringe there or whether it be
putting -- placing of sand, fill, along the mangrove fringe seaward of
the mangrove shoreline.
This is -- both of these are bad ideas. It would impact shore bird
habitat. These are mud flats. If you've been out there, they're -- it's
great places for little bugs and crustaceans to live in the mud. And
you put sand on top of that, it's no longer as great a feeding area for
these shore birds.
And it's not just the piping plover, you've got all kinds of other
birds that are listed species, including long-legged waders, reddish
egrets, and oyster catchers, little blue herons, tricolored herons, are
species of special concern that are using this area frequently, and that's
why it's such a great destination for birders and as an eco-tourism sort
of destination.
It's the best place in Collier County, even in Southwest Florida, I
would grant you. I have people from Oregon asking me about
Tigertail Beach. And the reason they are is because it's a well known
natural resource.
I think it's also important to remember that beaches and barrier
islands and inlets are very dynamic natural systems. They move.
I also believe that it is demonstrable that overdredging of passes
and channels can create and accelerate erosion, and we only have to
look at Wiggins Pass to see what sort of impacts we've got with the
13-foot dredging of the outer part of the pass there. We've got a
tremendous erosion issue; however, you know, erosion and pass
movement is a natural phenomenon, but we can exacerbate that and
accelerate it through overdredging.
Tigertail and Sand Dollar Peninsula is an incredible biological
153
April 13, 2004
productivity. It demonstrates the value of natural coastal management
policies. In other words, hands off has given you what you've got in
an incredible resource at Tigertail Beach, Sand Dollar Peninsula, that
whole area. It's like no other place.
And I want to also echo this -- the importance of an
environmental study, of a comprehensive study of not just the
specifics of the T-Groins and the renourishment of Hideaway Beach,
but also Tigertail.
There was a proposal by your parks and rec. department to put a
bridge across the lagoon -- excuse me -- the lagoon that goes out
towards the outer banks of Sand Dollar Peninsula, and I believe that
you should examine that whole area for its potential impacts so that
we know what we're talking about. What are we risking if we do any
of these changes?
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Brad?
MR. CORNELL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Are you saying that this vital birding area,
it's better not to renourish Hideaway because it might upset the
Tigertail area and the birding? In other words, are you saying the
Tigertail Beach is fast becoming Tigertail bird sanctuary?
MR. CORNELL: Tigertail Beach is a bird sanctuary, as is that
whole Sand Dollar Peninsula. And, no, I'm not saying that -- I'm not
saying really anything about renourishing Hideaway Beach other than,
if the mechanism or the way you allow that to happen through the
TDC is that you must build some sort of pedestrian access between
Tigertail and Hideaway Beach, which is a different part of this system,
then we oppose that.
So we're not saying anything about renourishing Hideaway
Beach. That's another issue. But if you do that, only if you create a
connection for pedestrians artificially through a bridge or through
placement of sand along mangroves, then we're opposed to that.
154
April 13, 2004
That's the issue that I'm raising.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, it's a nice parking lot for a bird
sanctuary, isn't it? I mean, Tigertail parking lot.
MR. CORNELL: Well, I will tell you that birders spend billions
of dollars nationally. We're -- it's one of the biggest sports. If you're
looking at sporting and recreation, birders spend a lot of money, and
they travel far and wide to spend that money, including to Marco
Island.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We're just having a problem finding
beaches for people to play on, and we -- and I like to see people and
birds be able to play together rather than have people removed from
beaches for the birds. And I know that that's probably not going to
make you happy, but, you know, there's got to be a happy medium
between them.
MR. CORNELL: Well, if you go to Tigertail and you look to the
left, there's a huge, huge beach that is there, very expansive, by virtue
of renourishment and it's -- I think that's the kind of destination you're
talking about. I don't think you want to transform a bird sanctuary
into a sunning beach just for the sake of--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It used to be a sunning beach, and that's
what I was telling the commissioners earlier. What we used to have
there is fast being lost. And that's -- that concerns me a lot. If we
don't fix the problem, we've got a lovely bird sanctuary with a great
parking lot and a fun concession stand, but it's not a beach, so -- thank
you. Okay.
Let's see. We have Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: First of all, I guess what I want to
do is establish some guidelines here. Can somebody tell me what the
state and federal guidelines are for beach renourishment and what is
involved as far as access points for beach renourishment? That's
number one.
MR. HOVELL: Again, Ron Hovell, public utilities engineering
155
April 13, 2004
department.
The federal and state programs that provide beach erosion control
funding rely on a -- pretty much just a distance from public access
type of formula.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what is that formula? What is
that access point?
MR. HOVELL: Basically anything within -- depending on
which one you're using -- either a quarter or half a mile of a public
access point.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what do we use here in Collier
County to establish these?
MR. HOVELL: Well, the policy that you adopted in December
is a half a mile.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: A half a mile from the point; is that
correct?
MR. HOVELL: From the access point.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that's for a high-use beach, okay?
For a low-use beach, you basically said, public street access, and it
had to -- and it had to get to -- have access -- get you to a beach that
has -- that's declared a vital tourism area subject to abnormal erosion,
okay? So you've got two criteria.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
MR. MUDD: And when it becomes a low-use beach in that
criteria, then there's some kind of cost share that's worked up.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Now just to clarify
everybody here, I live in the north area, and we've had a lot of
pressure put on us along the Vanderbilt area for beach access, and we
had a PUD that came before us, and I believe we also acquired some
additional beach access there.
Another statement that was brought up in regards to Pelican Bay.
They have beach renourishment from the Ritz-Carlton headed south
156
April 13, 2004
for a half a mile. Then from that point on, the people in Pelican Bay, I
believe, pay for the rest of that beach renourishment.
So those people, whenever-- and they start from the Ritz-Carlton
south for a half a mile, and then the rest of it's paid up by the people in
Pelican Bay --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is it entirely paid for by the people in
Pelican Bay from that half mile on?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, it is.
MR. HOVELL: Yes, ma'am. The grant application that you
approved this morning on consent agenda included, as Commissioner
Halas described, the first half a mile being paid 100 percent by TDC,
and everything south of that first half mile being paid 100 percent by
the Pelican Bay --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Just for clarification.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no. This is important, because
this was brought up in the discussion, so that we're on a level playing
field. We're getting an understanding of who's paying for what. And I
think it's very important.
The other thing is, not only do we have hotels on Marco Island
and along -- in the City of Naples along the coastline, also up in
District 2 in the Vanderbilt area, but we're getting more and more
motels that are inland or on 41. We're also renting a lot more condos
in season and homes in season, and these people also have to pay a
bed tax. They have just as much right to get to the beaches where
there's access provided that's unrestrictive as we do for people that live
here.
So I mean, when we start looking at this -- and of course I
understand, I've listened to some testimony in regards that there was
some commitments made years ago, but I don't believe that those
commissioners when they made those cormnitments ever envisioned
that we were going to have the growth potential that we have at
present and what is coming here in the future.
157
April 13, 2004
And I feel that we have the right here to make sure that we
adequately provide as much beach access for residents, presently and
in the future, and we need to make sure that everybody plays on the
same playing field, and that everybody has to realize that there's been
a large change in our community and that we have to look forward to
this.
So we're doing our part up in North Naples. There's been a lot of
pressure put on the people up there, and we're -- we're even enhancing
some beach access right from the road and everything else, so we feel
that everybody else has to pay -- get along with this.
And if you want to have a gated community and you want -- you
want to have an area where it's beach renourishment, then I'll tell you
what, you're going to have to step up to the table, and you're going to
have to pay a lot more than 29 percent, I'm going to tell you that right
now.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Can you show me --
point out that beach access on this, please?
MR. MUDD: Right on the perimeter of--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That one green round or
oval that was the previous slide, it was just to the south -- north of
that.
MR. HOVELL: This -- that's correct, Commissioner. The green
property line that you saw in the other aerial was Tigertail Park
property line.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
MR. HOVELL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
improved to actually use it?
MR. HOVELL: This proposal?
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
Can we go back to that?
Now, does that really have to be
This is--
Yes.
158
April 13, 2004
MR. HOVELL: -- Little Clam Pass right here. So in some way,
shape or form, we -- this is not, I would hazard to guess, wading depth
up in this area, and it's very thickly vegetated. So some -- some type
of clearing and boardwalk or something --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you couldn't walk that now?
MR. HOVELL: I wouldn't think so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that would take permits
from the -- from the agencies then, right, to try to access that? And I
guess the big question is how it -- how it fits our Growth Management
Plan now that --
MR. HOVELL: Actually, ifI could on that subject, I'm-- it's my
understanding that once the City of Marco Island incorporated, that
our Growth Management Plan no longer plays into how the city
handles their issues.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think we're just getting a
look-see of what's coming down the line when we start developing
listed species language for our Land Development Code. So -- you
know, there's a lot of questions about this beach access and whether it
can be done or not, and that's a lot of concern.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This map here doesn't show
Tigertail where the entrance is from Tigertail. Can you zoom out or
put a different one up? There you go.
What is the distance between the present entrance from Tigertail
and this proposed access? How far apart is it?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: About one quarter mile.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just a quarter mile?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And then from there, you have
to go across -- how far is it from there to the beaches we'd be
renourishing?
MR. HOVELL: To answer your first question, I think it is about
159
April 13, 2004
a quarter mile. And then once you were out on the beach where this
proposed walkway would bring you out onto the beach -- let's see,
2,070 plus -- it's roughly a half a mile to the first section where we'd
start renourishing. And if you go all the way to the other end, it's a
good mile and a half, maybe two miles by the time you get to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So people would have to get--
if they got access, there's no parking at this point in time planned at
that access. I think there's two lots we're going to have, which might
be able to take care of 10 cars, maybe 20 at the most.
And then from there, you walk down there, and you're a quarter
of a mile away from the Tigertail access, and then you have to walk
another half a mile to a mile and a half to be able to reach the
renourished beach.
The question is, in your negotiations -- what's the name of that
road that runs up there to the renourished beach? Is that Spinnakin
(sic)?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Spinnaker.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Spinnaker.
MR. HOVELL: Spinnaker Drive, I believe. Are you talking
about this road right here?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I guess that's what it is. Pull
back to the bigger picture, please.
Why can't we get access right to the beach on that road? Did
anybody ever talk about it? Has anybody ever broached the subject
and said, could we have access off that to the beach?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, nobody's said that.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS: That's what the proposal --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: In other words, your road comes off of
there?
MR. HOVELL: The proposal -- this is, I believe, Spinnaker
Drive. The proposal is to come in right here on this -- where the road
takes a mm, and then follow the property line --
160
April 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. That's not what I'm --
that's not what I'm asking. Go back to the big picture.
Did anybody ever ask -- right up there where that little red
triangle is and the renourished beach is, and you've got a road up there
that I can barely make out -- make out what it is or what -- is there
anybody that ever asked if we could have access to that road to be able
to gain access to that beach, and that solves all the problems? Has
anybody ever asked the question?
MR. HOVELL: I believe any time that subject has come up, it's
been a -- since it's all privately owned, it's been up to the Hideaway
Beach Association to make a proposal, and they've typically indicated
that it would not be through the heart of their community. Maybe you
want to address it with them directly.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Let me go back and ask
a different question, too. No one denies the fact that this beach -- this
area is eroding. There may be some danger to the residents that live
there as far as the stability of their houses.
Has anyone ever looked into the possibilities, like they did on
Isles of Capri, seawalls around the property to be able to keep it from
eroding without having to expend the expense of sand? Isles of Capri
has it through the whole island. Have they ever looked into that
possibility?
I mean, to keep putting the beach sand down and have it wash
away, obviously it's doing something to Tigertail Beach, it's changing
it from a beach to a bird sanctuary. I don't know, some people say the
best of both worlds.
But if this particular area, if some kind of funds, public works or
something else could be found to put up a seawall, has that ever been
approached?
MR. HOVELL: I think it's been discussed conceptually.
Typically, though, we've focussed on beach renourishment, and I'm
not sure I can explain all the reasons why.
161
April 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So we've got a beach
that's almost a mile removed from the access point, it's not really
available to the public, there's a road that goes up by there that we're
not going to be able to use --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, can I ask you a question? Are you
talking about this road right here?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, that's the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, exactly.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: That's the one you're talking right there that comes
close to Spinnaker and goes --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I can tell you that in no way,
shape, or form has staff ever asked that question, okay? We just
haven't asked the question because it's a private road and it belongs to
Hideaway Beach. We have discussed--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was wondering if maybe --
MR. MUDD: We have discussed--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- we want to continue this
discussion to the next meeting while you do discuss it.
MR. MUDD: We have discussed with Mr. Somers the ability --
and with Mr. Moss -- the ability of getting people to the beach
someplace in the middle of up there, that red area, dropping them off
with some kind of shuttle, logging them in, logging them out, and
making sure that they're in and out during daylight hours so that we
can maintain the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we have discussed it?
MR. MUDD: Yeah, we've discussed that particular issue, yes,
sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I mean with staff, or did you
discuss it with the management of the association down there at
Hideaway Beach?
162
April 13, 2004
MR. MUDD: I've talked to Mr. Somers and I've talked to Mr.
Moss about it.
MR. BRECHNITZ: Madam Chairman, may I address
Commissioner Coletta's question? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MR. BRECHNITZ: Is that okay?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Please.
MR. BRECHNITZ: First of all, the property that you point out,
if you extended Spinnaker Lane, or Spinnaker Drive, directly to the
beach does not go across Hideaway Beach Association. These are all
privately-owned lots by individuals.
We don't have the power of eminent domain. We can't condemn
them and take them from private property owners. The county has
that ability, but we don't have the ability to -- if this was common
property to the Hideaway Beach Association, you would have a very
powerful argument, but it isn't. These are individual lots and houses.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, but, I mean, you can
access that --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The roads.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- that road. If you had got on
that road and if you had in -- that one lot there that hasn't been
developed yet for access to the beach or between the two --
MR. BRECHNITZ: It would take several lots and houses to get
there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't understand.
MR. BRECHNITZ: Well, you have --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
or do you have a more detailed--
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
would make sense to me?
Okay.
Could somebody blow this up,
Zoom in?
-- picture with more detail that
I'm looking at it right now. Where's the beach start that
163
April 13, 2004
they're going -- we're talking about renourishing? Go up.
MR. HOVELL: Up off the top of there --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Keep going.
MR. HOVELL: Yeah, right there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Well -- yeah, over-- I'm
sorry. It doesn't do me any good for me to point at my screen because
nobody can see it. Where that little hand is, go straight up. Right
there, see that lot right behind it? MR. HOVELL: This one?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That looks like an empty lot.
Why can't we get that lot for access to the beach and come in off that
road that ends at that lot?
MR. BRECHNITZ: There's a -- first of all, to get into that access
area, there are other lots that you have to go across, Commissioner,
and --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't understand.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But that's a street there is what he's
saying.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's a street. You're coming off
the street.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: He's saying come down the street. It's not
in Hideaway, but he's saying just come down the street and access --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Solves the problem.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- from there.
MR. BRECHNITZ: Well, first of all, it's not a public street. And
as a result, we wouldn't qualify under the policy, number one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we could make -- I think
there we could make exceptions if we could get permission to use it.
MR. BRECHNITZ: Well, we would have to go back to our
association, but I doubt very seriously whether that would happen, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's okay. I mean, your
association's going to be the final determination of a lot of these things
164
April 13, 2004
that happen.
MR. BRECHNITZ: Well, for example, you know, the lot that
you point out down there, I don't know what the value of those things
are precisely, but that's a beachfront lot. The last beachfront lot that
sold was over two million dollars. So I mean, you just don't--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How much is the
renourishment?
MR. BRECHNITZ: The renourishment --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The cost of renourishment, the
county's share if we went along with your--
MR. BRECHNITZ: Three point three million.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Eight million.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I take that, we get the
lot, put that towards the renourishment. Wouldn't that work?
MR. BRECHNITZ: So which means we pay for it all?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no. We're talking about one
time, you know, that we would have an access point right down there
at -- it looks like a beautiful spot. If this beach is going to keep
washing away on a regular basis --
MR. BRECHNITZ: I can -- I can assure you that I would -- we
would have -- first of all, we cannot give away property without a vote
of our membership, and it would require a 75 percent vote, and I don't
believe that that would qualify for a 75 percent vote.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, if the choice was they
have to pay for 100 percent beach renourishment within the Hideaway
community or come up with this access point-- you know, I don't
know, I mean, it's a choice -- hard choices have to be made all the
time. You know what we're looking for. We want to try to make it as
affordable as we can for Hideaway, too.
MR. BRECHNITZ: We've made a genuine attempt to do what
we think is possible to do, and--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If-- maybe if we're going to go
165
April 13, 2004
back to public speakers, we ought to have a workshop on this item --
MR. BRECHNITZ: Well--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and sit down with everybody,
because this is -- this forum is just not working, and we have a lot of
expensive people sitting here waiting to get to items.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I just want to make sure
we explore every possibility before we vote this up or down. And the
idea is to try to come up not only for something for the general public,
but to try to meet some of the needs also of the people that live there
in Hideaway. I --
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: I got it, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'm sorry. I didn't mean
to imply you didn't, Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Has legal staff come up with a
definition yet of-- in regards to what was brought up earlier in the
discussion? I see we've got a lot of books open over there.
MR. WEIGEL: Hi. Yeah, I've got a few comments here. I took
a few notes along the way, too.
What I note is that our discussion today, I think, is mixed over
into a couple areas. We're talking about a board policy adopted in
December of this last year, which is put up against the history of many
years ago where the Deltona or the Mackle brothers provided for
seven-- approximately seven acres of beach access and recreation
area for a beach.
It was not a bird sanctuary or listed species place at that point in
time, and that has changed, and so the county has lost the recreational
ability to use that facility and it no longer serves a significant access
and recreational activity there as it was purported to do nearly 30
years ago.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: David, are you talking about
Tigertail Beach?
166
April 13, 2004
MR. WEIGEL: I'm talking about Tigertail. Tigertail has become
the tail that wags the dog, because when we got to beach
renourishment back in the '90s, early '90s, we already had Sand Dollar
Island issues, and the fact that a renourishment was going to have to
be tailored particularly relating to the then species and environmental
aspects of Sand Dollar where it was no longer a pure recreational
human park.
From that time we find -- we see right now that the -- north of
there, around the bend, to north of the island, that we even see
discussion that Hideaway and actions of renourishing Hideaway and
bringing back its beach may have aspects of affecting Tigertail in a
negative manner in the context of a sanctuary, but that doesn't assist in
any way with Tigertail as a -- as a beach recreational facility for
human beings.
With that aside, I'm just saying we've got some history in the past
that's butting up against policy right now. And the long and short of
it, I see, in having looked at the statute that Mr. Anderson cited, as
well as related statutes, is that the board certainly has the opportunity
to make a determination with some flexibility of its policy based upon
ordinance and policy resolution.
Ordinance of the past, ordinance 7620, the arrangements of the
PUD in the past, which is law and ordinance, and its policy, and can
conceivably come to a determination that, in fact, there are public
aspects of this -- of renourishing Hideaway Beach.
Mr. Anderson talked in terms of the Erosion Control Line aspect.
I see a distinction here that to the extent that Hideaway Beach was
renourished back in the early '90s, that -- and only to the extent that it
may be found that there's a continuing obligation of the county having
once renourished the beach to have ongoing permit requirements to
maintain the Erosion Control Line --and I think that's what they've
been doing for some time -- that that is distinguished from creating a
beach. Erosion control maintenance, control line maintenance may be
167
April 13, 2004
well distinguishable from the renourishment project which is part of
this funding consideration today.
And I would suggest that our engineering, working with the state,
may want to get back to that and report back to you in that regard,
because since the policy, your recent policy talks in terms of vital --
what was that term, Jim? Vital --
MR. MUDD: Vital tourism area subject to abnormal erosion.
MR. WEIGEL: Right. Well, you may be subject to abnormal
erosion. Some may say this is normal erosion just because of the
virtue of where it is.
But, in essence, to call this area a vital tourism area requires the
trek to be made from down south. There's no getting around that.
Now, two attorneys in my office, not noted for their beach
proclivities have made that trek, and it can be done. They've checked
it out in the flesh, and it can be done, but the fact is that there's no
local --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I hope they were wearing their
bathing suit.
MR. WEIGEL: -- you know, no local tree access to that point
outside of Tigertail.
So ultimately, I think it boils down to a determination probably
yet to be made if we have any continuing erosion control
responsibilities, which I think can be separated from-- could be
separated if the board so chooses from beach renourishment funding
through TDC funds.
You probably have some more questions. I'll try to respond.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, I have a few more
commissioners online, but I've got a stenographer over here, court
reporter over here who needs a 1 O-minute break.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I just finish up by a couple of
questions, and then we'll break? Can we do that? While I've got my
train of thought going here?
168
April 13, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because being an old man, why,
sometimes I lose that train of thought.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, write it down.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now I've already lost it, I think.
But anyway --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You just pushed your button.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I pushed it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What I have a concem with -- and I
have to go along with Commissioner Coletta -- and that is, when
somebody says they want to provide beach access, I think this is
probably the solution to the problem, and then we can look at it.
If they don't want to go that way, then as far as I'm concerned, it's
a private beach and we're not going to renourish a private beach, that
it's up to the homeowners' association to have to renourish.
We'll do the first half mile from Tigertail Beach where that's at
because the letter from the -- from Florida Department -- DEP said
that that is not an area in which we should even consider beach access
because of the fact that it's a highly sensitive area.
So therefore -- and we can't put a bridge across there. So,
therefore, we're only looking at where the property line of Tigertail
Beach is going in a northerly direction for the first -- that half mile, no
problem there. But from that point on, just like what happened -- is up
in my neck of the woods, those people have to pay for. That's where I
stand with it.
MR. WEIGEL: And Commissioner, ifI can add to your thought
there. We've talked about the Erosion Control Line, and I recall
history from previous meetings where the discussion has been had and
private meetings have been had with either me occasionally present or
others in our office with utilities engineers that are involved in this,
and that is that the Erosion Control Line, to our understanding, does
not exist over that whole northern area of Hideaway Beach, or north of
169
April 13, 2004
there.
And so to the extent that there may be an Erosion Control Line
maintenance responsibility of the county, again, I think, is a little bit
indeterminate right now and is something that I would suggest that the
staff would want to look at and go back to the old permits and see if
there's any tie-in at this point in time so you can put the issue in its
entirety either to rest or to some decision to go forward with in the
near future.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We may have -- we'll leave that
open, because we may have a commitment there as far as dealing with
the T-Groins.
MR. WEIGEL: And the word is may.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Exactly.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We'll break for 10 minutes. Be back at
3:15.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let's take our seats, please.
MR. MUDD: You have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Coyle, you're next.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. You know, I think there are
a number of factors which play into making a decision concerning this
issue, but I think there's one thing that we have to understand, and that
is that there's not likely to be any interest by any beachgoer to come to
an entrance down on the southwestern portion of that property in the
little green box and then walk all the way around up to the red lines
and go to a beach. I don't think that's ever going to happen, and I
think efforts to create some kind of walkway through there are futile
and will not achieve any goal whatsoever, including the goal to justify
using renourishment, or TDC money for renourishment of the beaches
in that area.
But there was a very interesting and I think important question
170
April 13, 2004
asked by one of the members of the public earlier. When is a deal a
deal? Unfortunately, in dealing with the government, sometimes the
answer is, well, it depends, but it shouldn't depend.
You know, when you make a commitment, you ought to be
willing to stand by it even if you made a bad deal. And the
government made a deal with you. They took some property that was
originally part of this PUD, and we're continuing to use it for good
purpose, and we pretty much resolved the issues at that time, that is
the commissioners at that time, resolved the issues of access to the
beach based upon that deal, and I think we have an obligation as
commissioners to uphold that arrangement even if it turns out today
that it wasn't the best deal that could have been cut. It is a deal.
If we decide we're not going to live up to our end of the deal, we
ought to return the property to you, including the Caxambas boat
launching facility and Tigertail Beach parking areas, and I don't think
we're willing to do that.
So my -- my suggestion is this: We took on this beach
stabilization project some years ago and we put in temporary T-Groins
with the intention of putting in permanent T-Groins, and now to pull
out in the middle of that process, to me, appears dishonorable, first of
all, and probably fairly stupid.
And I would like to see us follow through on the arrangement to
put in permanent T-Groins because that beach needs to be stabilized.
There is no point whatsoever in continuing to dump sand into that
portion of the beach, because it's just going to wash through the pass,
and it's going to be gone, and you'll be doing that every single year for
the rest of our lives. Let's get the beach stabilized.
And at that point in time, I see the homeowners' association of
Hideaway Beach picking up the responsibility for replenishing the
sand in that area since it does lie outside the areas that are suitable for
TDC funding.
So essentially, here's my motion, is that the county, out of TDC
171
April 13, 2004
funds, pay the cost of the installation of the permanent T-Groins.
Now, that's about $2.48 million. There's a total of $8.4 million, I
believe, allocated to Hideaway Beach in this budget, although I think
there's a million --
MR. MUDD: For a 1 O-year period of time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- for a 1 O-year period of time,
although I think there's about a million-dollar mistake in that addition,
but you can check me out on that. But even if it's only about $7
million, it seems to leave some money for some other projects.
But to go back to my original motion, and that is that we pay for,
through TDC funds, the installation of the permanent groins, the
homeowners' association then picks up the responsibility for beach
renourishment at that point in time, and that the cost of monitoring the
beach be divided 50/50 between the homeowners' association and the
Collier County government.
So that is my proposal, or my motion. I think it gives us exactly
what we want. It gives a consistent policy to be applied throughout
Collier County on the use for beach renourishment.
You see, there's a difference between the concern that
Commissioner Halas has in his area and the beach renourishment
policy. There's a beach stabilization problem we've got here, and that
requires extraordinary attention. And I would suggest we stabilize the
beach, and then exercise the standard policy with respect to beach
renourishment in this area.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I second that motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And -- okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to just ask a question.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And just to reiterate, the motion is to
stabilize that beach by installing permanent T-Groins with TDC
dollars and then sharing in the cost of the renewed beach once it's
formed in the monitoring of the renewed beach yet allowing
172
April 13, 2004
And
Hideaway residents to renourish at their own speed with their own
dollars.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, except one thing, you said
sharing in the renourishment. I --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sorry, sharing in the monitoring.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: In the monitoring of it, yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Which is a relatively low cost.
in talking with staff, it's about $100,000 a year.
MR. MUDD: A year, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it would be about $50,000 each
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, thank you for catching that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- which is not a huge, huge cost.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what are we talking about,
dollars and cents here? You're talking about 2.8 million?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, 2.48 million roughly for the
installation of the permanent T-Groins.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And then sharing in the cost
of monitoring, which you said was another $100,000 a year?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: About 50 percent -- about $50,000
would be our share.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So what we're going to do
initially is pay 2.48 million, and then $50,000 a year on out?
your
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
light on?
For monitoring.
Okay. I'll go along with that.
Commissioner Henning, you had
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, the -- the issue about the
PUD and the Caxambas Pass boat ramp is, reviewing the PUD I didn't
see anything where it said that the county shall renourish the beaches
in Hideaway once the PUD was created.
173
April 13, 2004
So, you know, the issue is using TDC funds for improvements of
this area, and I truly believe that we can work out something with the
Hideaway folks and the city council to do something like County
Manager Jim Mudd said, was, create a way to get there through a
transit system to the Hideaway Beach, not what is being proposed
today.
And I think it's a little offensive and probably won't work, what
Commissioner Coletta brought up, but I think it's very noble, is try to
create access over there, but we've got to remember that this is a gated
community and that's what they want, and we need to respect that.
But if we do create some kind of access through transportation to
the beach, then TDC funds can pick up the whole tab. I think the
compromise is noble, but it doesn't fit the policy, so I'm not going to
support it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Well, I agree to a point
with Commissioner Henning.
I -- we're still talking TDC dollars for tourism. And you know,
possibly the T-Groins, a certain amount of that should be a
responsibility of ours. I think it should be a shared amount with the
City of Marco Island and the people that live in Hideaway with the
understanding it's not from TDC money, but probably from some
general fund money or some sort of repair money that's set up for it.
We do all sorts of work throughout the county, repairing swales
-- I'm trying to think of different beautification type things. We deal
in all sort of things to protect the values of people's property to be able
to, not only the value, but just to protect the property period and how
we handle it.
And this might fall in that same category. There's a real need to
protect the people of Hideaway Beach, but tourist development funds
are exactly what they say. They're for the promotion of tourism, and I
don't think we can get there from here at this meeting.
174
April 13, 2004
But what fund from the county would be applicable to use for a
part of this if we wanted to do T-Groins? Anything, Mr. Mudd, you
can think of?. I see a blank stare from you and I --
MR. MUDD: No, sir. You'd have to use -- you'd have to use
general fund's dollars if you're going to -- if you're going to do
something other than TDC, and I'm talking about Fund 001.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand what you're saying,
but we do these kind of things all the time in different other areas.
Well, maybe not T-Groins.
MR. MUDD: This isn't unincorporated. You don't do --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I understand now. Is
there some way that we might be able to look at this in the relationship
to the amount of taxes that the county receives from them, over and
above for services they receive along with the share from Marco
Island, that we might be able to contribute something from the general
fund that would make sense? I'm just -- I'm fishing a little bit to try to
find a way to get there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta, let me just add
here -- and I just -- noble was a great word from Commissioner
Henning. I really admire you for trying so hard to find another way.
But actually the tourism industry itself has supported this. They
say, we have the money and we'd like to spend it here. It's not like it's
something we're taking from them. It's something they're
recommending that we do, number one.
Number two, the tourism industry as a whole on Marco Island
has said we're happy to see our dollars go toward this, and so they're
in support. It's not like we're taking their dollars from them. This is
actually what they want us to do with the tourism dollars.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there a possibility that we -- I
mean, I hate to broker these things at this late hour. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, me, too.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But you know, we are talking
175
April 13, 2004
about taxpayers' money and we're trying to justify what we're doing.
Is there some possibility, that $2.4 million for the T-Groins that it
seems like we're heading in the direction of picking up the cost for
tourist development dollars -- if we can't share the cost, is there some
way we can have an understanding this is a one-time cost and it would
come under their MSTU later to maintain it? MR. MUDD: Sir, that's what--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what the motion is.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's exactly what they're saying.
MR. MUDD: That's what-- that's the motion that's on the table
right now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So it's a one-time cost of
$2.4 million?
MR. MUDD: Close to $2.5 million, sir, and then the annual
monitoring would be split 50/50 between the special taxing district
that would encompass Hideaway Beach Homeowners' Association, in
that area, and the TDC dollars, and then the beach renourishment part,
that area that's between the T-Groin, when that erodes, it's up to the
special taxing district that includes the Hideaway Beach Homeowners'
Association.
And for simplicity now, whenever I say the Hideaway Beach
Homeowners' Association, I'm talking about the special taxing district,
so we make that connection--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So let me understand a couple --
MR. MUDD: -- that they would -- that they would, from now, in
perpetuity, put the sand between those T-Groins to maintain beaches.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And it's still a public beach, the
people can take their boats and pull up on, it doesn't mean that they
suddenly come in possession of this beach by the fact that they're
putting down sand at their own cost? It's still a public beach, correct?
MR. MUDD: That means there's no additional walking access
that's going to be done, that --
176
April 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we kind of understood
that wasn't going to take place. I mean, if the environmental
community's not going to back it and if they're going to stand in the
way of it, it's just not going to happen.
MR. MUDD: No matter if it's Pelican Bay Beach or Hideaway
Beach, everywhere, anyplace in Florida, if somebody shows up on a
boat on a beach, they have access because --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I just want to make sure in
my mind that we're not doing something that we lose what little rights
we have now to be able to access this beach.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The mean high water --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Also, too, can we put a cap on
that at $50,000 for each study so that all of a sudden some sort of
extraordinary study doesn't have to take place that goes all the way out
to--
MR. MUDD: Sir, monitoring is not a study. Monitoring is the
specifications that you have to do to monitor the project that you put
in place from now till whenever when that project is no longer a
project, to report that data into the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection. So it's basically a report that you do, a
scientific report, that you provide on an annual basis to the permitting
agencies for state and federal.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: It's not a new study.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But it's $50,000. I mean, this --
MR. MUDD: But right now it costs --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
million dollars next year --
MR. MUDD: Well --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
year?
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
-- isn't something that will be a
-- and five million the next
Put a cap on it.
177
April 13, 2004
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, right now it costs about $100,000 a
year for the monitoring report, and that's what I can tell you right now
at this particular --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, if we could --just so we
stay on top of this, some future commission doesn't all of a sudden
find themselves locked into something that's turning over on a regular
basis, can we put a cap on that has to be -- in order to be able to be
increased, has to come back to the commission, or it would have to
come back every year anyway?
MR. MUDD: It comes back anyway as far as the grant
application, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would just like to add one
thing to that. I understand your concern to get additional beach
access, but let me say this. If we want beach access, additional beach
access there, we can get it very easily by expanding the parking
facilities at Tigertail. We can quadruple the capacity of that parking
lot, and we don't have to do anything.
We can get more people on that beach. It is not an over-utilized
beach. There's a lot of space for people to wander around and bird and
everything else. So if we want to increase the access to Tigertail
Beach, we can do that merely by increasing the number of parking
spaces.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I figure with all the
money we save from the beach renourishment, we can hire ourselves a
ferry to take them from Tigertail all around to the other end.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Actually, that wouldn't be -- Tigertail is
beginning to grow in with grass now.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't know if-- I was just there last
178
April 13, 2004
week again, and they can't get rid of it. And it's beginning to grow up
and be a lovely place for the birds to nest, but it's covering the beach
shore, so we might need to do that. So anyway --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Donna, question. Where it's
starting to cover in there, how far is the walk from Tigertail out to
where you can get out to the water now if you go across the dune
there?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: If you go across the dune --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If you got --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What they do is they walk -- oh, my
goodness. They have a long walk. They have to walk all the way up
to the condos, and then they have to walk back and around. It's quite a
haul.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We tried to build-- we
contemplated building a walkway across there to reach it so people
could access the water, but the environmental community came out
very loud--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Strongly against it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and clear against it, so we
seem to be stymied no matter which way we mm on some of these
issues.
Just one thing so everybody that's out there today understands
what they're spending. What will it cost the Hideaway residents?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: This way, Frank, this way, and then--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You won't know that,
Commissioner Coletta, because you don't know how much
replenishment is going to be necessary until that beach is stabilized,
but that's one of the difficulties in trying to replenish a beach that's not
stabilized.
But once we get it stabilized with the T-Groins, one would hope
that the cost would not be that great. And I heard somebody from
staff say that probably would be an eight-year cycle for replenishment
179
April 13, 2004
on that, but who really knows until you've got the T-Groins there so
you can determine if it really does stabilize the beach. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner, then, are you going
to put a cap on the 2.48 million?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that's just for one project--
that's just for that project.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just for that project?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That one project, that's it, yeah, and
that's a project that's already specified. We've got the project details
and plans. And if the staff, for any reason, needs to modify that,
they're going to have to come back to us, I presume, right? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we'll have to take a look at it
if they need to modify it.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We'll put them in as bid line items when
we go out to bid.
Now, we've got an estimate, and that's what the grants are based
on. We don't have a bid because once you have the grant, then you go
out for bids in order to do that, what you have approvals for.
So the motion on the floor right now is to -- a one-time
permanent T-Groin expenditure from TDC to the tune of about $2.5
million for the beach renourishment portion of the Hideaway Beach to
fall as a requirement for the homeowners' association special taxing
district, and a 50/50 cost share for the monitoring reports for that
particular beach and the T-Groins between TDC and that special
taxing district.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
That's the motion.
Commissioner Halas?
I have just one question for legal
staff. Are we all -- within all the guidelines here of-- if-- of
stabilizing the erosion portion?
180
April 13, 2004
MR. WEIGEL: Your December policy is a policy -- it's not a
resolution, it's not an ordinance. It was an executive summary that
you adopted to be policy, so you -- apparently with the motion not
going to record consistent with that, quote, policy, that it's a vital
tourism area, but it's not a requirement of law that you make that
finding.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion on the floor and
we have a second.
Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just for clarity. Could
somebody read it back, just so I fully --
MR. MUDD: The motion on the floor is that TDC moneys be
used to do the T-Groins and the jetty, which are permanent structures,
will remove the temporary T-Groins that are on the beach, because
you've got to get rid of those before you put the permanent ones on,
and that part of the project is estimated to cost $2.5 million,
thereabouts, give or take a couple of dollars either way, that the beach
renourishment portions of Hideaway Beach, where they have to
actually put sand on the beach between those T-Groins and whatnot,
will become a requirement for the special taxing district, the
Homeowners' Association of Hideaway Beach, and that the
monitoring report costs that the county and the special taxing district
have to go forward to the permit agencies on an annual basis will be
shared, cost shared, between the homeowners' association special
taxing district, one and the same, and the county, the TDC, to the tune
of about $50,000 a year. And it could go up, but you -- the board's
going to get to see those grant applications every year with the money
broken out.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Of course, the presumption is is
that the homeowners' association's going to accept this. I mean, we
can still go ahead. I'm just saying that out loud.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And they will probably have to go back
181
April 13, 2004
to the homeowners' association in order to get that done.
I will tell you doing permanent T-Groins without having a
backfill of sand, which the homeowners in this particular arrangement
would provide, makes for a non-project as far as permanent T-Groins
because they've got to have the sand there or you're going to
undermine that particular structure.
So they've got to work hand in hand. It just isn't, the county's
going to do 2.5, and then five years from now you're going to put sand
on the beach. The first iteration has to be permanent T-Groins with
the sand as a base to hold those T-Groins in place to make sure that
they don't get undermined within the first year, and then -- then you
put sand where you need it on the beach that the T-Groins don't help
you --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's going to be the
responsibility of the homeowners' association? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a motion on the floor and we
have a second.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a 4-1, vote, with Commissioner
Henning in opposition. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a three o'clock time certain,
don't we? Not too close to three o'clock, but --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we get through these
182
April 13, 2004
other items, the other TDC items?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, we have a 3:00 time certain and a
3:30 time certain.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, I think-- I think we probably can get
through the rest of the TDC --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
MR. MUDD: How we doing, Sue, on public speakers? That's
what it boils down to.
MS. FILSON: On 10(A) we have three; 10(D), we have two;
10(F), we have two; 10(G), we have two. MR. MUDD: Okay.
MS. FILSON: 10(I) and (J), two.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we can probably -- we can
probably get through the rest of the TDC issues with -- before four
o'clock.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, that's fine with me as long as that's
all right with you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We made a commitment, so I was just
trying to stick to it.
Item #1 OD
APPROVE THE DENIAL OF TWO TOURIST DEVELOPMENT
CATEGORY "A" GRANT APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE
CITY OF NAPLES FOR MONITORING OF T-GRO1NS AND
TURTLE MONITORING AT GORDON PASS FOR FISCAL
YEARS 2004-2005 IN THE AMOUNT OF $59,964.00 - MOTION
TO FUND MONITORING TO CLOSE-OUT PROGRAM-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. Let's do -- let's do 10(D), which is
183
April 13, 2004
approve the denial of two tourist development category A grant
applications submitted by the City of Naples for monitoring of
T-Groins and turtle monitoring at Gordon Pass for fiscal year
2004-2005 in the amount of $59,964.
The reason the staff basically said denial is because it doesn't fit
in with your funding policy. Both your CAC and your TDC
recommended that these two projects be funded for the '04-'05 year so
that you can finish up the project that the county started years ago as
far as -- we only have one more monitoring report, is that correct, Mr.
Hovell?
MR. HOVELL: Yes.
MR. MUDD: And that would do it. And you only have to do the
turtle monitoring down there while your project is still in the
monitoring process. So there's one more year left, and that's why the
staff put a denial in there, but I'll let you know what the CAC and the
TDC basically recommended, that the county finish up on the
promises that were made in the past.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion to
approve based upon -- this is a previous commitment prior to our
policy.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You don't want to -- you don't want
to approve this then, you want to deny this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I want to den -- I want to
fund
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COYLE: Yes.
HENNING: -- the monitoring.
COYLE: Yes, exactly. I'll second that.
HENNING: That's my motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor and a second
MS. FILSON: And we have two speakers.
184
April 13, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay -- to fund the monitoring. Okay.
Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do the speakers want to talk us out
of this?
MR. PENNINGTON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now I see another head shaking.
MR. MUDD: Can you call the speaker-- Ms. Filson, can you
call the speakers, and if they wish to waive, they can. MS. FILSON: Ron Pennington.
MR. PENN1NGTON: I'll waive as long as it's going this
direction.
MS. FILSON: Jon Staiger.
MR. STAIGER: Me, too.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Discussion, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Please, why was staff
recommending that we not fund the monitoring? MR. MUDD: Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's go into detail on this.
MR. MUDD: -- because if you look at your -- if you look at your
overhead that's sitting up there right now, and you'll see a -- you'll see
a red line that runs perpendicular to the beach kind of dead center,
ground zero, and then you see a red circular -- big circular line that
goes in there, that's basically a half mile radius from the access point.
And the area in question is down there where the little circle is,
so it's outside of-- outside of the boundaries of your particular beach
access policy. And that's why the staff basically gave you a
recommendation for denial.
But there are some extenuating circumstances with this particular
project in the fact that the board or boards previous years, has started
this project, and this is the last year to finish it up.
185
April 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we're talking one year, or
we're talking continuously?
MR. MUDD: One year, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, okay, forgive me.
MR. MUDD: This is the last -- this is the last year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That was your motion then, this
is the last year and we all understand that?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just want to emphasize that. This
is a project to close out a project that has been underway for several
years. We merely want to take the last step and close it out. We
committed to get involved in it early on, and let's just finish it up, and
then we'll be finished.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's great to hear, I want to make
sure we got an understanding that once this is done, then we won't be
coming back to visit this again, that anything that comes up will have
to fall in the guidelines of our new established guidelines that we set
forth. Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning, wasn't it, and then a second by Commissioner
Coyle.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
186
April 13, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
Opposed, like sign.
And that passes with a 5-0.
Item #1 OB
APPROVE FOUR TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY "A"
GRANT APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE PARKS &
RECREATION DEPARTMENT FOR BEACH PARK FACILITIES
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 1N THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF
$3077000.00- APPROVF, D
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 10(B), and that's to
approve four tourist development category A grant applications
submitted by the parks and recreation department for the beach park
facilities for fiscal year 2005 in the total amount of $307,000. And the
item of contention is --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Which one are you on, Jim?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 10(B).
MR. MUDD: Sir, I'm on 10(B), and I'm going to try to get 10(B)
up'
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
MR. MUDD: The item of contention is the first item, which is
the beach dune walkover and paver pathway for $57,000.
As it went through the TDC, the TDC said, well, there might be a
cheaper way to provide the pathway instead of using pavers, so they
only allocated $47,000 to that particular project.
I will tell you that as of late, the parks and recreation side of the
house have been putting pavers on pathways. And Commissioner
Fiala, I think you've got to see some of those in the last week or so.
They're decent -- they're decent facilities where people go to the
beach, and they kind of make you feel proud when you go there, okay,
187
April 13, 2004
that you're part of a great community.
So staffis basically recommending that you fully fund that
particular item for $57,000 and not the TDC allocation of $47,000.
And that's the only difference between what the TDC recommended
and what the county staff recommended.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did somebody make a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I did.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, and I second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion from
Commissioner Henning to take the recommendation of staff, and a
second by Commissioner Coyle (sic). Any discussion?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, let me -- Mr. Dunnuck, if you'd get
up there and help me here a little bit.
MR. DUNNUCK: Hi. For the record, John Dunnuck, public
services administrator. There's also one other little issue with our
review with the TDC. The Parks and Rec. Advisory Board also
requested and recommended replacement of one of the pedestrian
walkways over in the Vanderbilt Beach area with a recycled plastic,
which is consistent with a lot of our walkover areas, and we would
also be widening at the same time to be more ADA compliant.
It's -- right now it's a little bit of a hazard for the people because
they get a lot of splinters and so forth. They recommended trying to
find a cheaper way of doing it. This is what our staff is
recommending, that we do that for consistency basis and to fund it at
the full $200,000.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: May I just -- I'm going to just throw this
in. I'll never forget the first time, just becoming a new commissioner
and I was taking a look at all the beaches. And I went to Tigertail
Beach and there was a big sign there that said, be careful of the
splinters.
And I said to Marla, if they're so bad, you know, why would we
188
April 13, 2004
stand to suffer a lawsuit? Why don't we put something else in there?
She said, great idea. I have this idea with this plastic. And I'm sure it
wasn't my idea.
But anyway, I'm so glad to see her following through. I think
that's important for every one of the beaches, people walking around
in bare feet.
Just a comment.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good work.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion on the floor and
a second, to approve staff's recommendation. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did -- we have to make sure that
Commissioner Henning is going to go along with the second item that
was suggested for an upgrade.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That's included in your motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is that included in your second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Item #10A
APPROVE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY "A" 10-
189
April 13, 2004
YEAR EXPENSE AND REVENUE PROJECTIONS- STAFF
DIRECTED TO COME BACK WITH REVISED BUDGET AT
NEXT BCC MEETING- CONSENSI IS
10(A).
MR. MUDD: 10(A) is to approve the tourist development
category A 1 O-year expense and revenue projection.
Commissioners, I think you've solved the issues with 10(D) in
the budget, and we will -- and we will change the budget
appropriately. I think you've also made a decision upon 10((2), and we
will -- and we will adjust the budget accordingly with that particular
item.
The last -- the last piece of contention on that 1 O-year thing that
we -- the 1 O-year budget that I talked about earlier when we first
introduced it to you, was the fact that it has to do with the Vanderbilt
Beach parking garage and how the board wishes to pay for that, and
do they want the money to come out of the beach access pot of $2
million and bond that particular issue, or do you want to recognize the
$3.8 million that you approved before and do that separately, coming
out of reserves and then using the $2 million every year thereafter in
the beach access to fund different projects outside of that. And I --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas.
MR. MUDD: -- think that's the -- that's the point of contention at
this particular juncture.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I want to find out if-- get this
clear. The $3.8 million was already approved some time ago before I
became a -- became (sic) on the commission here, so that's already
been set aside, is that correct, $3.8 million for the garage? MR. MUDD: It is in reserve, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So there's no need to bond
it. We just use those funds that's been set aside?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have one speaker.
190
April 13, 2004
MS. FILSON: You ready for the speaker? Mr. Ron Pennington.
MR. MUDD: And Commissioners, no matter what we --
whatever guidance you tell us on this particular item based on the
decisions you made on the others, I would feel a lot more comfortable
to come back once you're done making whatever decisions you want,
to come back and give a clean -- a clean budget -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: So would I.
MR. MUDD: -- so that we know what it is, and then you can
finally approve it. And I really don't want to do that on the cuff today
because we're going to miss something.
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
MR. PENNINGTON:
happy birthday.
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
MR. PENNINGTON:
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
to Norm Feder's wife, too.
MR. PENNINGTON:
Go ahead, Ron.
Good afternoon, Chairman Fiala, and
Oh, thanks.
I won't sing it.
Thank you. We can say happy birthday
Happy birthday Norm Feder's wife -- and
good afternoon, remaining commissioners.
The question about how to handle the parking garage is one that
ties back into an agreement that was reached on the funding policy. If
we look as to how did that $2 million per year for parks and rec. come
into being, it wasn't just grabbed out of the air.
If we go back a few months, we had a very difficult period about
development of the policy for use of category A TDC funds. We had
sharp differences of opinion between what direction it appeared that
the county commission was going and concerns from our major cities
of Marco Island, Naples, and eventually we had a coastal coalition that
weighed in on this also.
And from that, with all the acrimony that developed out of that,
we all wanted to come to a conclusion. Being angry with each other is
not beneficial for any of us.
191
April 13, 2004
So with that, there were three of us on the beach side. There was
then Vice Mayor Gary Galleberg, there was Collier -- or Marco Island
Council Member Arceri, and myself that met with County Manager
Mudd, and we met individually and discussed how we could have a
meeting of minds that satisfied the desires of all of us.
And in my first meeting with the county manager, he brought
forward and we looked at this budget projection, and at that time we
still called it a budget projection, and it was dated May 8th, 2003.
This came from the Coastal Advisory Committee.
And he pointed out to me correctly that over the 1 O-year period,
down on our line under special projects, and in addition to the Lake
Trafford restoration, which we recognize, that the other two units in
there, the Vanderbilt Beach parking garage and beach park facilities
totaled $20 million for that 1 O-year period, which he said is $2 million
a year, and I agreed with that.
So he asked, would we be satisfied and content if we had, for the
beach park facilities, the $2 million a year, since we were already
doing that in the long-term.
I suggested in looking at this that if we made this an average of
$2 million a year -- because some of the years as we had it there, we
had as little at that time for FY-2004, we had $140,000 in there for
beach park facilities. But out in 2007 we had $4,200,000, and it went
up to as much as over 5 million in 2011.
So I said, if we average $2 million a year, yeah, but that included
the cost of the parking garage. That was in there. That was $4 million
of that 20 million. Now if we included at that time the parking garage,
we would have only been talking about $16 million, $1.6 million
dollars a year.
But our discussion had included the total, the $20 million, which
was parking garage plus what we had scheduled at that time for the
park facilities, and that was the agreement that went forward. That is
what we brought forward.
192
April 13, 2004
Now, Mr. Mudd mentioned, I believe, to then Vice Mayor
Galleberg, a concern, if we said the average over 10 years, that's pretty
long for corporate memory, and he said that, perhaps, three or four
years for averaging would be more appropriate, and we agreed to that.
But the whole business of $2 million a year came out with this
combination for the parking garage. Now, this is what we carried
back to the Coastal Advisory Committee, which I'm presently the
chair of, and so that just occurred.
But anyhow, as we agreed to the policy, it was for the $2 million.
So that formed the basis then of the policy that we went forward with.
Now, on the development of the budget, from Coastal Advisory
Committee we had a subcommittee, committed -- with Mr. Arceri, Mr.
Rolig, and myself, and we met with several representatives of county
staff, that included from fine lands (sic), from contracting, and all to
ensure we were covering all the bases as to the kinds of things we
could do.
We were concerned about when we had to have money available
for our major renourishment because we're starting it here in this
current fiscal year, the processing, the contracting and all, but we
would be executing in the next fiscal year.
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
MR. PENNINGTON:
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
MR. PENNINGTON:
Thank you very much, sir.
So we worked across that.
Okay.
And so -- but that's how -- from that we
formed the budget that came forward. But that was the one that you
have as Exhibit A. So Exhibit A is the one that we approved, which
we felt was totally within the policy that had been developed, and
that's the one that we highly recommend that you approve. That is the
one that's CAC and TDC recommended to be approved.
I thank you. I'd be happy to responded to any questions.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, just as a point. Mr. Pennington is
absolutely correct, when we were developing the policy for beach
193
April 13, 2004
renourishment, those lines were added together with the garage and
the annual amounts in there. It came to about $20 million, and that's
where we came up with the 2 million. So that part of that particular
discussion is absolutely correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. In relation to this, let me see
if we haven't already solved this problem or should have. Tell me on
Exhibit A -- let's go to Hideaway Beach. We have FY-2004 cost of
$1,416,880. Is that money that was expended in FY-'04 or remains to
be expended this fiscal year?
MR. MUDD: Sir, can you say that one more time?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: Hideaway at $1.4 million?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes --
MR. MUDD: Ron?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- in FY-'04. What is that?
MR. HOVELL: Yes, sir. That's predominantly money that's
already been spent. Six hundred thousand for trucking this past
winter, plus some rollover funds that you've previously approved for
the design of the major project that you just approved the funding -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: How much remains of the $1.4
million that has not yet been spent?
MR. HOVELL: I'm not sure. I think about 375,000 of that is
related to the Hideaway Beach access improvements projects, which--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're not going to do.
MR. HOVELL: -- I get the sense you're going to cancel.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. HOVELL: So I would say off the top of my head,
somewhere in the neighborhood of 600,000 hasn't actually been spent
yet.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So we've got-- if we take
the FY-2005 dollars of 4,562,000, we've got roughly $5 million there
194
April 13, 2004
with the rollover funds from FY-204 (sic), and we just said we're
going to spend 2.5 million on the T-Groins. I presume we'll do that
over the next fiscal year or so.
MR. MUDD: Zero five, yes, sir,
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. So that leaves us with about
2.5, and then we have in the Vanderbilt Beach parking garage,
$500,000 in 2005, and 498,000 in 2004. That's a million there. It
looks to me like we've already got 3 million-- over $3 million
available for the parking garage right now based upon the decisions
we made earlier today.
So I -- I tend to agree with you. I don't know why we want to get
into the business of changing the parameters that were agreed upon
back in -- back at the time the budget was put together. Does that --
does that seem fair or reasonable?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, I just don't -- I just don't know where that
-- your discussion went to. I mean, you're finding dollars. Are you
saying -- are you saying once you find those savings, you put it up
against the garage?
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
And what you're saying
million on top of that.
COYLE: Yeah.
HALAS: Yes.
COYLE: I think that's what you were saying.
is that we don't provide an additional $2
MR. PENNINGTON: That's correct. That was our concern.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Your concern is -- the staff's
concern is, you want to do something with the garage now, you don't
want to have to bond this and pay interest over a period of 10 or so
years. I think we just got you most of the money to do that. So I don't
know why we need to have the money that is -- that we continue to
accrue for this thing over a period of 10 years when we've just got you
the money to do it next year.
MR. MUDD: Okay. So what you're -- what you're saying in this
195
April 13, 2004
particular case is you want to go with the CAC and TDC -- the CAC
and TDC budget for the 1 O-year, and then we'll adjust it for Hideaway
-- but the point of clarification that you just have to make, and then
we'll come back and we'll clean it all up for you, you're basically
saying that the $3.8 million that was set aside for the parking garage
based on the PARAB recommendation is no longer there, okay, and
that you're going -- you want the garage to be paid out of the $2
million.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: Because PARAB is recommending and saying,
you made a past commitment on the $3.8 million, and you approved
it, therefore the moneys have already been allocated, and then they're
saying, we want our $2 million that's part of the policy. And so that's
where we're sitting right now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. But we've already made a
correction in what the upcoming budget would be because of--
instead of the 8 million over a lifetime of Hideaway Beach, we've
already knocked that back down to 2.48 million.
So I guess what we're saying is, that you've already -- we've -- we
were able to -- actually what we ought to be approving is probably
Exhibit C, making the adjustments in Exhibit C, which is basically a
combination of staff and the CAC, which really came out about the
same amount of money, I believe, the bottom line.
MR. MUDD: Well, the staff recommendation -- the staff
recommendation basically follows what the PARAB is asking for on
the Vanderbilt Beach parking garage at the $3.8 million that the
county already allocated, or the Board of County Commissioners--
excuse me -- already allocated, is a cost that's already happened to it,
and, therefore, the money is there to be used, and then there's $2
million that are coming to access every year thereafter.
And what Commissioner Coyle basically said is, no, the garage is
coming out of the $2 million, and what Ron's basically talking about is
196
April 13, 2004
it's coming out of the $2 million that's been allocated every year for
the parking garage, and that's the difference.
If you're saying you want to come up with a compromise that
basically says the $2 million that the county just saved on the initial
2005 Hideaway Beach issue, that 2 million should go on top of the 2
million a year that's going in in order to get the beach done and then
you come up with the other $2 million out of John Dunnuck's
business, out of his allocation, because the garage is going to cost over
$4.5 million, our best guess, and do it that way.
If that's what you're telling me, Commissioner, then I follow it.
But really it comes down to the $3.8 million. Where is it?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I think it's in a combination
of what you've already budgeted for the garage for FY-'04 and '05 and
what we just saved from the Hideaway Beach allocation for '05 and
the cost and the carry forwards from FY-'04 for Hideaway Beach --
MR. MUDD: So let me try to -- Ron, you're -- be with me here,
okay, as we try to figure this one out.
What you just told us is that, that in 2005, the direction of the
board for the $2 million a year will continue to go and the money
saved based on the Hideaway Beach issue, the $2 million, will be
added and allocated to the Vanderbilt Beach project. And whatever
moneys on top of that $2 million has to come out of parks and
recreations' $2 million.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Two million dollars, that's right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Pennington, I appreciate
your cooperation with the county manager during the discussion, but
the county manager cannot make agreements for the Board of County
Commissioners.
MR. PENNINGTON: Understood. I--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it's my understanding that
197
April 13, 2004
the $2 million was for beach access. That is my understanding. So
somebody needs to correct me. And this is not beach access. This is a
facility with -- on the beach that has been allocated all along.
So I want to see that a top priority in this funding source. And if
it's a little cloudy on the moneys left over, we need to bring it back at
a future meeting, like the next meeting, until all the numbers are all
cleaned up.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I'm a little bit concerned
that we're traveling down the wrong track here. If we're going to be
taking money that's for beach access and saying, no longer it's (sic)
beach access, it's going to go to the garage, to the parking garage --
that's a direction we're being recommended at this point in time, that
we raid the money that we have for beach access and not put it to the
garage? Is that what we're getting the recommendation for from the
commissioners here?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. What's basic -- what's basically saying in
the budget -- and let's take a look -- just so that we all see it. I want
you to make -- I want you to take a look at two items, and I want you
to look at the CAC/TDC, and that is the first -- the first budget
amendment in Exhibit A, and I want you -- and I want you to take a
look at the Vanderbilt Beach parking garage -- can you put the -- and
beach parking facility, okay? Those two items in 2005 equal the $2
million, give or take $60,000, of beach access money that's in your
policy on how you allocate those category A funds. Can you please go to Exhibit C.
MR. HOVELL: Pat's recommendation?
MR. MUDD: Which has got the PARAB in it.
Now, if you take a look at Vanderbilt Beach parking and you
look at the beach parking facilities that sit there, what staff has
basically recommended based on the recommendation of the PARAB
is the $3.8 million that was previously approved for the Vanderbilt
198
April 13, 2004
Beach parking garage is previously approved by the Board of County
Commissioners and is not part of the $2 million allocation for beach
access that stops -- that starts in 2005.
What Mr. Dunnuck was going to do in this particular case,
because the parking garage has increased in cost based on our 2001
estimate, which was 3.8 million -- it's now up to about 4.5 -- that the
difference in cost between the actual cost today and the 3.8 would be
taken out of the $2.06 million that are allocated for access in 2005,
and that's the difference.
And what Commissioner Coyle just brought to the attention of
the board is the Hideaway Beach item, which was scheduled for about
$4.5 million, is now $2.5 million as far as TDC, and there's $2 million
that you can pull off in order to fill that void of the 3.8.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
MR. MUDD: And what his recommendation, kind of middle
ground consensus -- and sir, if I'm putting words in your mouth, you
let me know -- was to try to get with the middle ground, use the $2
million from the Hideaway piece that's now-- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Go ahead.
MR. MUDD: -- being offset by the homeowners' association,
instead of 3.8, only let it be 2, and then let Mr. Dunnuck find the extra
dollars out of his beach parking facility allocation on an annual basis
starting in 2005.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What you described is
fundamentally correct, but I think the numbers are different. If you go
back to Exhibit A for me, and let me just go through that with the
numbers on Exhibit A and see if we can reach some understanding as
to whether or not I am interpreting them correctly.
You will see that under the Vanderbilt Beach parking, there's
already $500,000 budgeted there for FY-205 (sic). Now, we have
498,500 budget in FY-204 (sic). Has that been spent?
MR. HOVELL: No, sir.
199
April 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. You've got a million dollars
sitting there in a budget right now just for that one line item. Now, we
just saved a minimum of $2 and a half million in the Hideaway Beach
line item. So if we add the 2 and a half million to this million, we've
got $3 and a half million that can go immediately to the parking
garage.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sounds right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you're in good shape.
MR. MUDD: Well, you and I are saying the same thing,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Exactly.
MR. MUDD: Okay. What I said is the in between, is you're
taking 2 million from Hideaway and putting it on top of the $2 million
that is allocated to parks and rec. for beach access, and you're paying
for the Vanderbilt Beach parking garage.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: Okay? And that's what you're saying. So the
difference between the CAC and TDC version and the one that you
just talked about was a $2 million fixed -- fixed price that's coming in
in 2005 to be added to it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Added to the almost million dollars
you already have budgeted for that particular item.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We're saying the same thing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've got $3 and a half million --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Somehow it sounds clearer when he says
it. Sorry about that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that's--
MR. MUDD: When he says it?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, when he says it.
MR. MUDD: It's okay. I think we're saying the same thing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
2OO
April 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The '04 budget is -- we already
have those funds?
MR. HOVELL: Yes, sir. The '04 budget is taken from the
approved board-adopted budget.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Previously? That's already in
the bank? Okay. And then the '05 budget is something we don't have,
but we're going to allocate that today?
MR. HOVELL: Yes, sir. That would be --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're coming up to $4
million?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Roughly four million.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, so we're still short
800,000 that has to come from somewhere, and what you're talking
about is beach access money, and I just don't think that was what the
board approved when we approved the policy. So somebody needs to
move this item.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I don't believe it's that much
money. I think it's $3.8 million is the cost. When you have the total
of 4.7 out there, you're talking about the total cost over four years,
which has got to include some interest cost -- or I'm sorry -- over 10
years.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what I'm describing to you is what
our estimate of the beach parking facility's going to be. It's going to
be about $4.5 million, okay?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's gone up in price that much.
MR. MUDD: In order to do that over a 1 O-year per -- okay. In
order to do that over a 1 O-year period of time, these are the bond and
interest payments that you see that says 498, 500, 482, 467. Because
as you start paying off the principal, you're not paying as much
interest. I wish home mortgages worked that way. But the county
ones do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you see, the total of that with
201
April 13, 2004
the interest is only 4.7 million for 10 years. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I'm saying to you that if you've
got the $3.8 million or almost $4 million right now in cash to do this,
you don't have those interest costs over a period of 10 years. So it's
got to be less than $4.7 million.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We'll come back with it -- we'll come
back with --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: I guess my question is, what do you want to do
with the $2 million that you're getting from Hideaway?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Put it on the Vanderbilt Beach
parking garage.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That I'll agree with.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: There you go.
MR. MUDD: And then I will come back with a budget the next
time if the board so directs me to do so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I would agree.
MR. MUDD: Okay. I have two nods?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just as long as we're not taking
it out of beach access funds.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, did you
have anything else to say?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, that was it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. So you have direction then to
come back to us with a revised budget? Okay.
MR. MUDD: Next meeting, ma'am, we'll come back with that
budget.
202
April 13, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
MR. PENNINGTON:
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
Very good.
And thank you all.
Thanks, Ron.
Item #10G
CONDUCTING THE CONSERVATION COLLIER ANNUAL
PUBLIC MEETING TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THE
PROGRAM'S PAST ACTIVITIES AND TO PROVIDE
DIRECTION TO STAFF FOR IMPLEMENTING A FUTURE
OUTREACH STRATEGY, FOR SOLICITING PROPOSALS AND
APPLICATIONS, AND FOR IDENTIFYING A FINANCE
STRATEGY- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: So, Commissioner, we had a -- we had a time
certain item that was item 10(G) to be heard at three p.m., and I know
we're an hour and 11 minutes late, but that's kind of what I thought the
afternoon was going to be like.
Conducting the Conservation Collier annual public meeting to
provide an update on the program's past activities and to provide
direction to staff for implementing the public outreach strategy for
soliciting proposals and applications and for identifying a financial
strategy, and Ms. Alexandra Sulecki will present. Did I do it right or did I mess it up?
MS. SULECKI: It's Sulecki. That was -- that was close.
Sorry, we're having some technical difficulties here.
Well, I'll start while they're getting that together. Good
afternoon, Madam Chairman and Commissioners. For the record, my
name is Alex Sulecki. I'm the coordinator for your Conservation
Collier program.
And what I'd like to do before I start is to recognize some folks
who are here in the audience. I have a couple of land acquisition
203
April 13, 2004
advisory committee members with me here today. Bill Poteet. There
he is, and Mike Delate. And they'll be available after I speak if you
have any questions. They may have something to say to you as well.
Also I'd like to recognize our real estate services team, Chuck
Carrington and Cindy Erb, who have been giving us wonderful service
in the real estate department. And also very quickly just thank some
members of the audience who are here of the public who have been
contributing by attending meetings and providing input, and that
would be Brad Cornell and Nicole Ryan. I'd like to thank them as
well.
Okay. So here we are at our first annual public meeting, and this
is described in section 10 of our ordinance. The purpose of it is to
update you, the board, and the public, and for soliciting proposals and
applications, and this will be sort of a pictorial version of your
executive summary.
Okay. And what we'd like -- what I'd like to do today is to
update you on our activities, give you the status of our active
acquisition list properties, tell you just briefly what current
nominations we have, identify for you our proposed outreach strategy
for this cycle, give you our second-year objectives, our proposed
finance strategy, and then I'll ask you for some things.
I'll ask you to accept this as our annual report and to approve our
proposed outreach strategy and direct us to return with the resolution
to implement that and also to approve our proposed finance strategy.
And this just gives you an idea of where we are today. We have
accomplished quite a bit. You see the vertical yellow line. That's
where we are. We've accomplished -- or establishing our budgets, our
first cycle active acquisition list. You have approved some properties
for purchase in January.
We have established our budget for next year, and we are getting
ready to -- we have gotten our appraisals for some properties and
getting ready to do some land purchases, which we hope to do later
204
April 13, 2004
this summer, early in the fall, and then we're also starting on our
second active acquisition list to bring to you, hopefully, again
sometime this fall.
And this is a status of the properties that you approved in
January. All of them we have appraisals due tomorrow actually. One
of them we've got an appraisal back and our offer was rejected by the
owner. Another couple have appraisals on hold waiting for various
things to occur.
And this is a map of our current nominations. Our staff has the
capacity to process about 35 of them at this cycle, and you see the red
stars on there. It's a location map for them.
Yesterday, however, at our Conservation Collier land acquisition
meeting, we did -- the committee did determine to remove a couple of
these from the list. One of them is here (indicating), here, and the
other one is here.
And the one over here was very close to and right next to the
Dixie Sky properties that you removed from our list, and we didn't
feel there was much reason to bring you back any more of those. The
one up here was part of a PUD, so that presented some problems, and
then this one here was a platted water manage -- water management
and conservation easement, so it was already protected, so we've
removed those from our list.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Can you tell me what happened to the
Malt property?
MS. SULECKI: The Malt property is one where we have the
appraisal on hold because we're still working with the state on our
partnership agreement.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
MS. SULECKI: And we have two multi-parcel, multi-owner
nominated projects. And these are proposed for the North Golden
Gate Estates target protection area. We're currently working with our
advisory committee to identify the most efficient way to manage these
205
April 13, 2004
properties because you might notice they have a lot of parcels in them,
over a hundred in each. And we'll bring you more information on
these as we develop our strategy.
The project on the left, the North Golden Gate Estates, unit 53,
you've already approved on our first active acquisition list. And the
Winchester Head, which is just east of the fairgrounds, will be brought
to you as a part of the second cycle.
And this is our proposed outreach strategy. In developing this we
looked at two key considerations, where do quality natural lands
remain within our target protection areas, and where are property
values rising the fastest?
The answer to the first question was, at least in part, scrub areas
around Immokalee, and that's in our urban target protection area, and
lands buffering the Corkscrew watershed. These are areas one and
two on the maps.
The answer to the second question about where land values are
rising fastest is, of course, in the urban areas. And so lands were
selected for outreach within these areas considering equitable
distribution and ecological quality. These are areas three and four.
Area five represents ongoing interest in the North Golden Gate
Estates target protection area in unit 53, and area six represents lands
identified at a meeting with Lee County Conservation 20/20 folks,
which would add to protect lands that have been selected in Lee
County for protection across the border.
So we would propose to send out about 750 interest letters
hoping to get two percent response rate or about 15 hits on those to
those property owners in these areas identified that were not captured
in our first mail-out, which was last year.
In this way we advance our goal to mail to all property owners
within the target protection areas, and so all target protection areas are
represented in our mail-out except for sending lands, which we
already have some that have been nominated by the owners.
206
April 13, 2004
So we are at this time soliciting proposals and applications
specifically in these areas, but we would also look at applications in
any other area within the county.
And applicants can contact me -- and I'll give the phone number
here. It's 213-2961 -- to start this process.
Our second year objectives are to continue to evaluate and select
qualified properties and projects, to secure grant funding wherever
possible, to prepare management plans for our acquired properties,
and to develop our program manual.
Our proposed finance strategy is to pursue on a parallel track a
variable line of credit for $75 million which provides us some
flexibility to use just what is needed, or a general obligation bond for
the amount needed which provides a lower fixed interest rate.
And my understanding is we will be pursuing both of these until
we get a better idea of exactly what amount of funds we might need,
and then a decision will be made as to which is a better vehicle. And
the reason it says here in May, sometime in May that we'll know
better, is because our appraisals will all be in then, offers will be
made, and we'll have an idea of which ones are going to be accepted
and how much money we'll actually need.
So today we're here with some recommendations and requests. I
would request that the Board of County Commissioners accept this as
staffs first annual report for the Conservation Collier program and
approve the target protection area outreach strategy, and direct staff to
bring back a formal resolution that implements this strategy, and also
to approve our proposed finance strategy as recommended by the
county finance committee.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioners, any questions?
Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a couple of questions, Alex.
With respect to the recommended outreach strategies for cycle two,
table one, those do not in any way imply priorities, do they?
207
April 13, 2004
MS. SULECKI: No, they do not.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Can you tell me to what
extent Naples Bay restoration and water quality enter into your
selections for candidates for purchase?
MS. SULECKI: Well, we do, of course, have the Fleischmann
property that's on our A list that is coming up. That's within that
watershed, also the Winchester Head, which is that multi-parcel
project that I showed you is within the outer reaches of that watershed
area.
We did go to the Big Cypress Basin Board to ask for their
assistance with that. There was also a presentation by South Florida
Water Management District at the same time on that very issue, and
they were very interested. And I've been talking with Pamela Mac'Kai
and Mike Bower about some assistance with administrative help to
buy the parcels.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. SULECKI: And, perhaps, some funding help as well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Have you identified any other
parcels other than the Fleischmann property that we've been working
on together that would be likely candidates that would help to improve
the quality of water in Naples Bay?
MS. SULECKI: Well, that's one of our criteria, so we would
look at all properties to see how they would impact the watershed, but
it is a willing seller program, so we can only look at what comes in
our doors.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
MS. FILSON:
Nicole Ryan.
Okay. Thank you.
Any other questions from the
We have speakers?
Yes, ma'am. Bill Poteet. He will be followed by
208
April 13, 2004
MR. POTEET: Hello. My name is Bill Poteet. I live at 6180
Star Grass Lane, and I happen to have the pleasure of sitting on this
committee. And for the last year, I've been very involved with the
other members trying to find properties that meet the criteria that the
commission set forth.
I'm here only to answer a few questions, if you had any questions
about how we decided how to, you know, what properties to be
recommended to you, et cetera. I'd be happy to answer that.
Otherwise, I'll sit down.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Looks like you can sit down.
MR. POTEET: Thank you.
MS. SULECKI: And Commissioner Coyle, I was just reminded
that we do have another set of properties that would impact that
Naples Bay watershed. There were some nominated properties along
the Gordon River corridor.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are you pursuing those?
MS. SULECKI: Yes, we are.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Next speaker?
MS. RYAN: Good afternoon.
MS. FILSON: Nicole Ryan.
MS. RYAN: Nicole Ryan, for the record. Here on behalf of the
Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
And first of all, I would like to congratulate the county on a very
successful first year for the Conservancy Collier program. Staff is
doing a great job. The website is up and running, and there is a
tremendous amount of information there. It's a wonderful resource.
And if you look at your active acquisition list, there's some really
great properties that are on there, important properties and imperiled
properties that, hopefully, the county will own by this time next year,
hopefully in the fall.
The response rate with the property nominations and the number
209
April 13, 2004
of willing sellers shows that the community is really embracing this
program, and that's the good news. But going along with that, you
have a lot of land that is being nominated, and the county really needs
to focus in on very specific target protection areas.
We don't want staff to be spending a lot of time reviewing every
single property that comes in, and so the Conservancy really supports
the target protection areas that are being proposed for this upcoming
second cycle. That's really going to help focus time and resources.
Also something that needs to be looked into, and Alex mentioned
this, is the way to make our dollars go further, and that can be done
with innovative partnerships with the state, like we're doing with the
Malt property, also looking at how we can potentially partner with the
Big Cypress Basin on the Winchester Head or some of these Naples
Bay projects. Very important.
Also Florida community's trust grants. We have some properties
on the active acquisition list that could be eligible for that. So with the
cost of land in Collier County, it's really important to maximize those
dollars.
So the Conservancy supports the active acquisition, or I'm sorry,
the target protection area list, and we ask that you approve the staff
annual report, the target protection list, and the financial strategy.
And again congratulations on a year well done. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Was one of our prime
motivations to purchase any urban property that we could to try and
keep green spaces in the urban area? And so is that considered a
target -- what did you call it, target --
MS. RYAN: Target protection area. Well, there are some within
the Gordon River Basin area, and then also the -- what is being termed
the Sabal Bay property, so south of 41, the scrub habitat there, lots of
good uplands scrub adjacent to Rookery Bay. So there are -- it's a mix
of both the urban and the rural lands.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And I was glad to hear that you're
210
April 13, 2004
still working on that Malt property.
MS. RYAN: Absolutely. We'll never give up.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And you know, they still have their PUD
signs up, and they've been up there for about a year, right? I thought
they had some -- we had some provision to get them to tear it down
after it's been there for so long. But anyway, I guess that's another
subject.
Thank you, Nicole.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The second cycle I have
concerns -- number one, area one looks like it's in the Immokalee
overlay area. I would hope that you would work with those folks out
there, because, you know, District 5 really was not in favor of taxing
themselves for conservation area, and I know they might have a
different thought out there.
MS. SULECKI: Okay. What would you like me to do
specifically?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, you have people --
let's see. It's a non-sunshine organization. Can you help me out,
Commissioner Coyle, which one that is in the Immokalee area?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have the slightest idea.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's some Immokalee
leaders out there. I would hope that you could talk to them.
MS. SULECKI: I will. I will definitely look into com--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Another concern that I have is
area two. I just -- I see no opportunities for the general public to
access that land or even want to go way up there to access that land. I
would really like to pull that off the list.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Area two --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Most of these is (sic) in the
target areas and the rural areas of the county.
MS. SULECKI: Well, those areas are right next to the CREW
211
April 13, 2004
conservation lands, and they do have quite a bit of public access up
there. That's, I think, why they were nominated by the subcommittee
and the committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay. Well, I -- then I'm
wrong. I guess I need to take time to go out there to find out what the
opportunities for access is.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Isn't that adjacent to the Corkscrew
property or pretty close to Corkscrew Swamp?
MS. SULECKI: It's north of there. It's adjacent to the CREW
properties.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Which is Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem
Watershed, okay?
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I actually have -- I don't
have objections to purchases made within District 5. I can see some
very positive things. I mean, these areas can also be used for
recreation land, which we're losing more and more of.
You know, of course, you have been working with the
Immokalee people, and I expect that when we get down to that point
that we start to move forward, that we'll arrange meetings with the
Chamber of Commerce and maybe hold a public meeting in
Immokalee on those particular areas, but I think-- MS. SULECKI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- you're going to be very
warmly received.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any other comments from
commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think you need a motion
on this one.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No. Alex, you did a great job, and the
committee has done a great job, and they've -- a couple of the
212
April 13, 2004
committee members have been kind enough throughout the process to
include me in some of their findings, and I really appreciate what
you're doing. Thank you.
MS. SULECKI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great report.
We move on to item 10(I).
MR. MUDD: So Commissioner, before you leave 10(G) for a
second. Alex, if you'd just stand fast for just a minute. The
recommendation to the BCC was accept the staffs annual report of the
Conservation Collier program for the first year, approve the proposed
target protection areas outreach strategy as summarized in table one,
and direct staff to bring back the subsequent approved -- for approval
of a formal resolution that implements this strategy, and approve the
proposed finance strategy as recommended by the county finance
committee.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, actually, we do need a motion for
that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make that motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor from
Commissioner Coletta to approve staff recommendations, and a
second from Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that passes, 5-0. Thank you.
213
April 13, 2004
Item #10I
REQUEST TO APPROVE FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT
OF "HORSE CREEK ESTATES", FORMERLY KNOWN AS
"LITTLE PALM ISLAND, AND APPROVAL OF THE
STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE
PERFORMANCE SF. CI JRITY- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that would bring us to our 3:30
time certain, and we're catching up. We've gained about 10 minutes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we're ready to take a 1 O-minute
break after this, too.
MR. MUDD: The item is 10(I) and 10(J), and they're both
connected. They're both companions.
One is to request to approve for reporting the final plat of Horse
Creek Estates, formerly known as Little Palm Island, and approval of
the standard form construction and maintenance agreement, and
approval of the amount of performance security.
And its companion item is 10(J), which is petition
AVESMT-2003-AR-5088 to disclaim, renounce, and vacate the
county's and the public's interest in a portion of the utility easement
conveyed to Collier County by separate instrument and recorded in
Official Record Book 637, page 857, and all the drainage easement
conveyed to Collier County by separate instrument, and recorded in
Official Record book 2,248, pages 1,057 through 1,058, public records
of Collier County, Florida, located in section 23, township 48 south,
range 25 east.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And Mr. Schmitt will present.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, administrator of
community development and environmental services.
214
April 13, 2004
This is a simple recording of a plat. I was looking for Fred.
Fred's coming in.
This is a -- actually what this was was an agreement that was
reached. And I think Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Pires are here both to
speak for their respective clients in regards to the developer's
agreement.
There really is -- associated with the recording of this plat, it had
to do with a previous approved special treatment. It's not a PUD. It's
regular zoning property. So with that, I'll turn it over to Mr.
Yovanovich. If you would-- if it's with your pleasure.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I think what the bottom line is
going to be is they want to get down this homeowners' association
development agreement and put it in public record.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. MUDD: And I think that's the purpose, and that's the
extraordinary piece of these two documents.
MR. SCHMITT: Withno disagreement.
MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich. All we
really want to do is introduce into the record a copy of an agreement
that was reached between the previous developer of the property and
the people of Palm River.
My client has bought the property and has agreed to the terms
and conditions of that previous agreement, which will be conditions of
the development of the plat and the condition of the approval of the
plat.
Tony handed me some language, but I think I just basically said
that. That's what we're confirming.
With that, we'll be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have two public speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. John Belt.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Call the first speaker.
MS. FILSON: John Belt. He will be followed by Anthony Pires.
215
April 13, 2004
And they're registered for both (I) and (J). CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. BELT: I'm John Belt with the Palm River homeowners. I
do have some items here I'd like to pass to the board for their
consideration. I'll explain what they are.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: They'll take them for you, sir.
And are you speaking for both items at this time?
MR. BELT: I'm speaking regarding the plat of Horse Creek
Estates. I don't know anything about the adjoinment (sic) -- or the
abandonment of the easement or those -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. BELT: -- permits or things of that sort.
The items that I have here, the first item was presented at the July
30th and 31 st hearing before the ST permit, and it was approved and --
through this item and the good board's help along the way, we were
able to finally meet with the developer who had never met with us for
the two and a half years that they'd been working on this project all the
way along.
And if Mr. Coyle remembers, that was the first meeting that he
came to the board. We waited there from nine o'clock in the morning
till nine o'clock at night when we had our hearing before this body.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll never forget.
MR. BELT: But the problem is, is that that was approved. As a
result of that, the second sheet of paper that you have with a clip on it
is the agreement that we made with the former developer. It was only
because of the passage of the first resolutions, and the board's
direction is that the developer should meet with the homeowners and
try to work some of these things out for our protection.
We have been working for safety in our areas for a long time.
They are going to use our present streets and go through our
community for access to this property, and we felt it was essential that
there would be something as to truck traffic, times for the trucks to
216
April 13, 2004
come in, speed humps for the protection of our people in the area from
the trucks speeding in and out of the area, and that was all reached
with agreement of the developer at that time.
Third item is just taking from those five items that were agreed
with the developer. And we now have that property -- the developer
we made the agreement with is no longer involved in this property. It
has been redetermined (sic) to the owner and sold to a new developer.
The new developer has seen copies of these agreements and has said
that he would abide by them all the way along.
As the ST -- or the executive summary says, the final item in
your executive summary that is before you today was, the construction
plan approval shall be subject to the stipulations contained in the
preliminary subdivision plat approval as well as the special treatment
permit.
That sounds fine except none of these agreements as to the time
they come in, the preconstruction traffic, where they go, and the
installing of the speed humps was all made after that ST permit that
you made.
Our concern is that we want the board's protection to make sure
that these all become part of the stipulation, terms and conditions are
incorporated into and made a part of the approved required
construction plans or construction plat that is now before you at this
time and shall be modified unless approved by the Board of County
Commissioners at a regular meeting of the board.
We feel that this new developer is very able to work with us and
has shown cooperation all the way along. But having had the
experience for about two and a half years of fighting the developer all
the time on each meeting before the board and the other boards, the
planning board and the environmental board, that we were only
benefitted and protected by the Board of County Commissioners.
We have no objections to the new developer, but he might sell
out to somebody else, and we'd be back in the same ball (sic) we were
217
April 13, 2004
in.
As somebody said to me, this is your last chance, and we would
ask the board that you incorporate these agreements as well as the
plans.
I understand the developer has met with the county traffic people,
and we have met with them. They have a plat showing where the 15
speed humps will be installed throughout our area on the access in as
well as the access out for the trucks, and we feel that this should be
installed before any construction is started on this particular
development.
We want that to be a part of the stipulation of the plans for the
permit, or the print that you're now approving as being essential to our
interests in seeing that this is done and that it be done before
construction starts.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Belt. But before you
leave, I think Commissioner Halas has something to ask you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Mr. Belt?
MR. BELT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that it's been brought out
pretty clear here by Mr. Yovanovich that they were going to live up to
these agreements. So do you feel comfortable with what was stated so
far here today?
MR. BELT: If that's of the record--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's of the record.
MR. BELT: -- that they're going to do that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And how about Tony? Are
you -- do you feel warm and fuzzy -- warm and fuzzy over this, too, or
what?
MR. PIRES: Rich and I are actually standing together again, yes.
For the record, Tony Pires, Woodward, Pires, and Lombardo
representing the Palm River Homeowners' Association.
And as Mr. Belt indicated and as Rich agreed on behalf of his
218
April 13, 2004
client, if these terms and conditions as outlined in the document
provided in the agreement are made part of the construction plans, I
think staff is okay with that also, then everything is fine.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And do you feel
comfortable with that?
MR. PIRES: And as Mr. Belt indicated, the developer has been
working with the homeowners.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we approve
item -- I think this is item (I), 10(I).
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, we --
MS. FILSON: Tony Pires was our final speaker. Did you wish
to speak or--
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Second.
MR. PIRES: Nothing further.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Now, state
your motion, please.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we approve
~0(~).
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And a second by Commissioner Henning.
Any discussion? I see--
MR. SCHMITT: That the motion include that the agreement be
part of the construction --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, exactly.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for clarifying.
Is that what you wanted, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. That's what I wanted to do.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And that's part of your second as
well, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Nods head.)
219
April 13, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do we have any further
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Which is a 5-0 for 10(I).
Item # 10J
RESOLUTION 2004-113: PETITION AVESMT2003-AR5088 TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND
THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A PORTION OF THE UTILITY
EASEMENT CONVEYED TO COLLIER COUNTY BY
SEPARATE INSTRUMENT AND RECORDED IN OFFICIAL
RECORD BOOK 637, PAGE 857, AND ALL OF THE DRAINAGE
EASEMENT CONVEYED TO COLLIER COUNTY BY
SEPARATE INSTRUMENT AND RECORDED IN OFFICIAL
RECORD BOOK 22428, PAGES 1057 THROUGH 1058, PUBLIC
RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LOCATED IN
SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST-
ADOPTED
Then we go to 10(J).
MR. MUDD: And 10(J) is the service recom -- recommendation
that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a resolution for
petition AVESMT-2003-AR-5088, for the vacation of a portion of the
220
April 13, 2004
utility easement and all the drainage easement conveyed to Collier
County by separate instruments and authorize the execution of the
resolution by its chairman and directs the clerk-- the clerk to the
board to record a certified copy of the resolution in the official
records, and that's staffs recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion on that motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's a 5-0. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Earlier, Commissioner, when we were
going through the -- and I'm talking about 10(E) -- are you going to
take a break at all, ma'am?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. You know what, we need to for
our court reporter, right?
THE COURT REPORTER: Cherie will be here at five.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. Cherie's going to be here at
five. We'll do it at five.
MR. MUDD: Okay, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Item #10E
221
April 13, 2004
APPROVE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND THE CITY OF NAPLES INDICATING
THAT COLLIER COUNTY WILL WITHDRAW ITS APPEAL TO
OBJECT TO THE CITY'S PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT REGARDING OVERPASSES AND THAT THE
CITY SHALL NOT OBJECT TO ITS CONSTRUCTION; PROJECT
NO. 60027-C; NO FISCAL IMPACT- TO BE CONTINUED TO
THE APRII~ 27, 2004 [iCC MEETING
MR. MUDD: 10(E), for the audience, 10(E), which was approve
an interlocal agreement between Collier County and the City of
Naples indicating that Collier County will withdraw its appeal to
object to the city's proposed comprehensive plan amendment
regarding overpasses, and that the city shall not object to its
construction project number 6027-C -- excuse me 60027-C, with no
fiscal impact. That was continued by the Board of County
Commissioners till the next meeting in April. Excuse me. Yep, the
next meeting in April.
Item # 1 OF
AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT TO
ADVERTISE BIDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE GRADE
SEPARATED OVERPASS AT AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AND
GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY; PROJECT 60027-C' FISCAL
lMPACT $500.00- APPROVED
And that brings us to item 10(F), ma'am, which is to authorize the
purchasing department to advertise bids for the construction of grade
separated overpass at Airport-Pulling Road and Golden Gate Parkway,
project number 60027-C, fiscal impact for this particular item going
out to bid is $500 (sic), and Mr. Norm Feder will present.
222
April 13, 2004
MR. FEDER: Madam Chairman, members of the commission,
for the record, Norman Feder, transportation administrator.
I want to welcome all the people that have come out to
participate and get involved in this important issue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Norm, may I interrupt you just one
moment so that I don't do this a little bit later. Will you tell me how
many speakers?
MS. FILSON: Five.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Five speakers. And what Jim Mudd has
suggested earlier in the day is, we have five speakers now, and that's
where we'll leave it rather than have people running up after and, you
know, rebutting everybody. We will -- any speakers that are now
registered for this --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Too late, Dex.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No.
MS. FILSON: Six, seven.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I'm just telling you now. Six,
seven. Just so that everybody understands, whoever wants to speak on
this subject, get your -- get your slips in now because after this point,
we will not accept any more.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, just so everybody knows that this
isn't -- this just isn't some rules that basically comes down. On the
front of the public advertisement for this board meeting, first item
under the front page, it says, notice, all persons wishing to speak on
any agenda item must register prior to speaking. Speakers must
register with the county manager -- and Sue Filson is my agent -- prior
to the presentation of the agenda item to be addressed.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. And we have eight speakers
now.
MS. FILSON: Eight.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So that gives us five minutes per speaker.
At 10 minutes -- at 10 speakers, then I knock it down to three minutes
223
April 13, 2004
for everybody, but we'll go at five minutes per speaker. Thank you.
Thanks, Norm, for that.
MR. FEDER: Madam Chairman. As you know, we've addressed
this issue of an overpass at Golden Gate and Airport Road basically
for the last two years. We've had quite a few presentations to this
board.
The issue basically started in 1989, in 1990, through what has
been called the Hallstatt, the development of regional impact, major
development that today is known as Grey Oaks, the Estuary, and
Naples Grande.
That development order, approved by both the city and the
county, found it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan with both
entities at that time, specifically provided for the reservation of
right-of-way and the development of a grade separation with Golden
Gate to fly over Airport.
Since that time, that item has been in your Metropolitan Planning
Organization plans. It's been in the county's comprehensive plan very
specifically as part of an overall improvement along the corridor along
with the state's development of the 1-75 interchange at Golden Gate
Parkway.
As we went into this process, we realized it wasn't necessarily a
community desire to establish grade separation, so we initially went
out with a contract that required a feasibility analysis of what could be
done at grade, can we handle it without an overpass.
That analysis was done and started a process after we came out
with that results, that it couldn't be handled at grade appropriately.
We then started, with the board's direction, to develop a concept plan.
We brought that out to public meetings, to the city, to others.
That culminated in basically the development of about 30 percent
set of design plans to move into a 60 percent set of design plans, and
about January a year ago started the first ofjoint meetings between the
city and the county where the desire was to look at every and all
224
April 13, 2004
alternatives and to make sure that we fully evaluated the issue, to
make sure that, in fact, grade separation and overpass, if you will, was
truly what we needed.
That's 16 months ago, plus we started out initially looking at
bridges. We looked at alternate bridges, how much relief it could
provide. It provided some. It was a good network item, but it didn't
really relieve this intersection.
We were then asked to look at alternate concepts, nontraditional
or nonconventional, intersection designs. We did that. There's been
quite a bit of debate and discussion about a split intersection with
Michigan U-turns.
More recently, after about -- over a year of discussion and five
consultants' review, all of which said that an overpass is specifically
what's needed at this intersection, the issue got raised of trying to look
at an eight-lane concept.
And we've taken that as we've taken all previous concepts and
issues very seriously, and we've done a lot of analysis of that.
It's my understanding that as part of that analysis, we were asked
to do some additional runs and information for the representatives of
Grey Oaks community in their presentation group, and we've provided
that to them.
I understand they want to make some presentations to you. With
the board's indulgence, what I would say is let them make those
presentations. Staff is ready to come back and provide some further
detail in our analysis of the eight-lane concept, and then we try and
come back to any questions that you have at that point.
So if that is appropriate, I'll allow those folks to present what
they found in their findings, and then we can respond back to that as
appropriate, therefore, not taking a lot longer of your time for
presentation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. FEDER: Thank you.
225
April 13, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Before we have speakers, our court
reporter's replacement is here, so we'll take a 1 O-minute break, come
back at five, and let them change their equipment out. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, before we break,
I think the assumption from some of the members -- that we're going
to be here for a while. And I see -- I think we've got four more items,
and they're short items. But I hear people are ordering dinner. So
what are we doing here?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're taking a break.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we're taking a 1 O-minute
break. You know, I need to either call my wife -- or tell her I won't be
home for dinner or something. So I just see that we're going to be
done by 6:30, 7:00.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, that's good then. My husband can
take me out to dinner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay, great, great. Now I
know where we're at.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Take a 10-minute break.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Madam Chair, you have a hot mic.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Thank you very much.
Okay, now we'll call our speakers.
MR. MUDD: And for the record, ma'am, we're still working on
10(F), which is the going out to bid for the Airport-Pulling/Golden
Gate Parkway overpass.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: We have eight speakers. The first one is Rie
Mathews. Following will be Bill Poteet.
MS. MATHEWS: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman and
226
April 13, 2004
commissioners. My name is Rie Mathews. That's okay. I'm here
tonight because a number of my friends who work could not be here
because the meeting is at day time. They didn't know it was going to
run over. But they are avid supporters of the overpass, so I am
speaking for them and also for myself.
One of the points that I did want to make is that I read in the
paper that some members from Grey Oaks made the suggestion that
the change of the traffic lights would solve the problems, and then I
saw things in the paper about well, yes, this would, this would do this.
Well, I just wanted to let you know that five times in the last two
weeks, I have been westbound on Golden Gate Parkway, and I have
waited two lights or three traffic lights at non-peak times, 10:30 or
11:00 in the morning, 2:00, 2:30 in the afternoon, and I am still
waiting. It's not solving the problem.
The other very, very important point that I did want to make is at
one of those times that I was sitting there waiting, an ambulance was
trying to get through. It was over a minute before that ambulance
could get through, and he had to cut over the median strip, go down
the wrong side of the road. One minute can make a God-awful
amount of time for somebody who is suffering a heart attack or a
stroke or something like that.
The other point that I do want to make is that I'm from L A. I
lived there for 20 years in Los Angeles. So I'm not an engineer, but
I'm kind of an expert in driving in traffic.
And I drove over 70 miles round trip to work. I've driven the
overpasses, the freeways, the six-lane roads and the eight-lane roads.
And I can tell you, if you get in the wrong lane on a six-lane or an
eight-lane roadway, you're out of luck, because you're not going to be
able to go any place but straight.
And this happens a lot down here, if you notice, with the tourists,
with the snow birds, with the people just moving here, people do get
into the wrong lane and they're constantly trying to move over.
227
April 13, 2004
I've driven a lot of overpasses over there, and I've looked at the
plans for the overpass here. They're not anything like the ugly things
that we have in California. This one to me makes sense from a
driver's point of view. It also looks nice.
I've lived here for six years, and I'm totally amazed at the
increase of the population here. I can definitely understand why.
We're living in paradise. This is heaven on earth. And more and more
people are going to continue to come here. The paper said the other
day that the census bureau said we had a 30,000 plus increase in
population in Collier County over the last year. This is going to
continue. It's not going to stop. Not with the type of atmosphere, the
weather and everything that we have down here.
Any resident who lives here now who is living near a major road,
thoroughfare or an intersection is going to have to inspect -- you
know, expect the increase in traffic, because there are more and more
people moving down here. And with the increase of traffic, then
there's going to be road construction, and none of us are probably
going to like it, but we need to bite the bullet and go ahead with it,
otherwise, we're going to have one major gridlock, one major traffic
jam like we have in L A. I do support this overpass. Like I say, I'm
not an engineer, but I do like what I see, and I think it's the only
alternative. And I think we as a community have to look together to
see what benefits all of us, not just our own individual community, but
what's going to help the rest of the people to get to work, to service
our communities and also for the public emergency vehicles. Thank you very much for your time.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Bill Poteet. He will be
followed by Bill McCanna.
MR. POTEET: My name is Bill Poteet. I live at 6180 Stargrass
Lane in Golden Gate, and I am currently the president of the Golden
Gate area civic association. We represent the 21,000 residents of
Golden Gate, of which 65 percent of them are in the work force age.
228
April 13, 2004
These are the people that get on the roads, that have to drive to and
from work. We supply the work force for the City of Naples and a lot
of the county. And every day we have to go face gridlock. And this is
not a new situation. This has been going on for a number of years,
seven or eight years that I can remember, and it hasn't been resolved.
This proposal on the overpass is not a new idea. When I worked
for Barron Collier some eight or nine years ago, working on the
development of the Colonnade at Grey Oaks, it was incorporated in
our plans. We knew the overpass was coming. They were just
marking the subdivision at Grey Oaks at that time, and it was in all
their plans where they had private flyovers over Airport Road and
over Golden Gate Parkway to interconnect their community before
they started selling off some of the properties. But it -- so it's a new --
and it's not a new concept, it is something that was planned for.
Now, this basically goes down to the same premise: We don't
want this in my backyard. And we've heard that about almost over
every other major project in Collier County. And unfortunately we all
have to share in the infrastructure needs within this county. We can't
be just isolated and say okay, we'll do it here but not here. I mean, if
they were going to do that, I mean, we'd gladly trade the residents of
Bear's Paw or Golden Gate for the land -- for the flyover for our
landfill. But, you know, that's just not a practical thing. It's not going
to happen.
I sat last year -- in fact, I've sat on the 1-75/Golden Gate
interchange ad hoc committee for the past three-and-a-half years, and
we've worked very diligently to try to make sure that this corridor that
we're creating from the Golden Gate area to the City of Naples is a
shining example of what Naples is supposed to be about. We've
incorporated a number of the design features that were in the flyover
into our structure at 1-75 in Golden Gate with some of the lamp posts
being built in, the heights of the lamps, types of things of that nature,
some of the landscaping concepts, pavers, et cetera, all trying to be
229
April 13, 2004
MS. FILSON:
MR. LEACH:
MS. FILSON:
MR. LEACH:
MS. FILSON:
by Bill McCanna.
consistent as we go down the road so it looks like it is one well
thought-out project all the way through the community.
This -- we looked at -- the Golden Gate Civic Association looked
at the alternative solutions that some people have offered, and none of
them seem to work. Having worked in the State of Michigan, I've
driven the Michigan U-tums, and I don't understand why anybody
would use them. So, you know, we've looked at what Mr. Feder and
his group has proposed. It's a very attractive design, they've spent a lot
of money on making sure the landscaping and all the other features are
consistent with the type of aesthetics that the City of Naples and the
Collier County community desire.
And so we are -- the Golden Gate Civic Association is firmly
resolved to endorse this project and ask you to support the issue.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Bill McCanna.
MR. LEACH: If I could maybe -- Mr. McCanna and I are kind
of together. My name is Mr. Leach. Could I take his place for--
You're next.
Yes. Okay.
Do you want to go in front of him?
Yes, please.
Okay. John Leach. And then he will be followed
MR. LEACH: Madam Chairman, Commissioners, thank you
very much. For the record, my name is John Leach, and I live in 3150
Dahlia Way in district number four, and I appreciate the time today.
I did not get Rie's last name, but I listened to Mr. Poteet. And I
don't want to bore you with anecdotal things about that interchange of
the Golden Gate/Airport-Pulling interchange, but I've been through --
I live right next door to it, I've been through it various times, many
times over the last month or so and before that. And I can tell you that
I have yet to see a huge back-up of anybody going westbound at any
230
April 13, 2004
time of day. And I can also tell you that going eastbound, it used to be
that we had three, four, five, six traffic light changes before one could
get there. Mr. Feder went up in a helicopter one day and told me he
saw a mile-and-a-halfback-up going eastbound. And since we
changed the timing of the light and the sequencing of the light, we've
not had that back-up whatsoever. I go through there, and it's
wonderful. So I don't know, there might be a price to pay for a little
bit of peace of mind going eastbound at the end of the day --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. Leach, you have to make sure you
speak into the microphone.
MR. LEACH: Oh, I'm sorry. I will try to do that.
What I would like to talk to folks on today is what happens when
the interchange opens. The year is 2005 or 2006. The day the
interchange opens, there's a perception in this community on that day
that there's going to be a huge increase of traffic flow coming down
the Golden Gate Parkway because of that intersection -- because of
that interchange opening, and that we're all going to get crowded into
the Golden Gate/Airport-Pulling Parkway and huge traffic jams are
going to develop.
In fact, if you look at the Kimley-Horn numbers on this aspect of
it, you'll find that in 2003 we have 44 -- this is Airport-Pulling -- or
Golden Gate west of Airport-Pulling. In 2003 we had 44,592 vehicles,
average daily traffic, using that road. And the forecast is for 61,708.
Now, east of Airport-Pulling on Golden Gate there's a projection
of about 16,000 additional vehicles just because this interchange
opens.
I would like to say to you what -- the question is, where are all
these additional vehicles going and where are they coming from? Why
is the sky going to fall in on us just because that 1-75 interchange
opens? Is there a Disneyland or something opening up in downtown
Naples that is drawing all those people? I think not. You know, the
real story here is -- and it's kind of like the Sigfried and Roy magic act
231
April 13, 2004
that we often saw in Las Vegas or on TV. You know, where did that
elephant come from that suddenly appears on the stage? That's what
that traffic is. The answer, folks, is that he was always there. He was
just hidden from view and the audience did not notice him.
And that's the answer in this particular case as well. The answer
about all this increase in traffic is that nine -- according to Collier
County traffic department, 9,000 vehicles, or 55 percent of the
increase, that's 16, 17,000, are already there. They are already coming
down either Airport-Pulling Road or Livingston and going through
that Golden Gate/Airport Road intersection. They are there right now
as we speak.
An additional -- by the way, it's 6,500 vehicles down Livingston
Road and 2,500 down Airport-Pulling. An additional 3,700 vehicles,
or 22 percent of the total increase on the day the intersection opens,
are coming from U.S. 41 and Goodlette-Frank, again as told to us by
the Collier County traffic department. Thus, a total of 77.7 percent are
already there and represent no real increase in traffic. Some are using
the intersection as we speak. And these are the reported deductions
that the traffic department use to reduce the traffic on the various
roads to project what's going to be going through that Golden
Gate/I-75 interchange, a total of 12,000 vehicles.
Now, let's look even further. We've got these deductions going
on. Given these deductions, do the revised traffic flows on
Airport-Pulling and Livingston make sense?
Let me show you something. This is Airport Road, north of
Golden Gate. If you -- actual average traffic in 2003 was 43,412. If
you subtract the 2,500 that the traffic department deducted because it's
going to go through the 1-75 interchange, that number really becomes
40,900. So the increase now that the engineers are projecting is 17.9
percent or 48,000. This doesn't make sense. Where are all these
vehicles going to be coming from?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Leach, you're not the 10 minute
232
April 13, 2004
person, are you?
MR. LEACH: No, I'm not.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You're the five minute person.
MR. LEACH: Yes.
The same exists for Livingston Road.
So, in conclusion, regarding the impact of the 1-75 interchange,
75 percent of the new traffic predicted is already here, 55 percent of
the new traffic predicted is already flowing through the interchange.
Additional traffic predicted for both Livingston and Airport-Pulling
north of Golden Gate is unrealistic, there's no Disneyworld in Naples.
My recommendation, implement a modified base -- base case
scenario, which Bill McCanna will tell you about, changing the
intersection to eight lanes going east and west to Santa Barbara to
improve the east-west traffic flow. Do not waste taxpayer dollars on
unnecessary overpass at Golden Gate and save our Collier County
taxpayers $40 million. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I gave Mr. McCanna 10 minutes because
he's speaking for other people, so -- MS. FILSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- okay, he's got 10 minutes, but he's the
only one that does.
MS. FILSON: Okay. The next speaker is Bill McCanna for 10
minutes, and following him will be Tom Conrecode.
MR. McCANNA: Bill McCanna for the record. I'd like to thank
County Manager Mudd for -- and also Commissioner Coyle for
helping us get some information that we're going to present here today
that I think will be very helpful and instructive for everybody.
We started out talking some time ago, you saw this chart, John
mentioned the back-ups on this of a mile or more. We basically
propose some short-term solutions, timing of the lights, which
basically we got some help on that.
MR. MUDD: Speak right into it.
233
April 13, 2004
MR. McCANNA: Also converting a lane, which didn't occur.
But also sequencing the left mm -- a in the sequence of the lights,
which also we got some help on. And basically help reduce the
back-ups on this intersection.
We didn't get everything that we expected or asked for, but we
did get something, and it was a big improvement. We said let's add
that up, the capacity improvements that were available were very
substantial, and in fact we got part of that. And in fact, literally in the
evening, and we only focused in the evening, not in the morning or the
afternoon or whatever, our efforts were strictly in that PM peak hour
activity.
But that's not what we're here for. We're here to say that we have
a viable, cost effective way to manage this intersection, and we've
talked about it before. Four lanes each way, more storage, sequencing
of the lights, narrow down to three lanes after you get through the
intersection with sufficient time to merge, and we have additional
capacity as a result of that.
Well, this is strictly -- we say modified base case, you have to
understand, it is the base case alternative proposed by the county
transportation division. The only difference is one additional lane
each way east and west. It's the same tums, left and right.
Now, how did the certified professional engineers score more
lanes? Well, more lanes produce longer delays? A few question
marks.
The base case that was done and analyzed produced a delay of 94
seconds. The modified base case with more lanes east-west produced
a 114 second delay.
Now, I spent my life in technical businesses, I'm an engineering
graduate, I spent time at Harvard and advance management programs.
I have never seen somebody try to convince me that this was in fact
the case, okay?
So we said last week that we want identical parameters run in
234
April 13, 2004
that model. And what happened? The 94-second delay that was for
the base case by adding just a single lane each way produced a
67-second delay, not a 114 seconds. So what does that mean? That
means that it's an LOS-E, level of service. We say that meets the
Collier County requirements in 2025. The range for LSO (sic) E is 56
to 80. We're below the midpoint for the LOS-E.
Now, for those of you that are unfamiliar, the Collier County
policy basically states the level of service E or better shall be
maintained on the following designated roadways. It's the Golden
Gate Boulevard, among others. That's what it says. That's the goal.
And how shall you measure it? You'll measure it by taking the
10 months of the year, excepting February and March, to get the peak
traffic in order to analyze that.
In any case, we've already seen there's a question on the
numbers, but this is accepting the numbers in the forecasted traffic as
is. So what's the delay in perspective, 67 seconds? Well, one way to
look at it is the cycle length of the light. 160 seconds is a typical cycle
length. The delay is less than one-half of a cycle in 2025.
Let's take a look at what else we've got. Let's look at the corridor.
In the Parsons Brinkerhoff study, they did a corridor analysis. And if
you take the delays from that and you look at it now, you'll see that
the modified base case from 41 all the way through Santa Barbara
gives you 323 or 24 seconds. The overpass gives you 306. So the
question on the table is, is the 17-second delay along the entire
corridor worth $40 million? We think not.
Even better results are possible at this intersection by doing some
fairly basic things. Increase the cycle length from 130, where the
analysis was done, to additional cycle length, optimize the timing,
which we don't think was done. An additional permanent right mm
lane could be added. We talked about the actual versus the forecasted
traffic. We don't think that the forecasts in traffic are in fact valid.
And most importantly, here's another one that people forget
235
April 13, 2004
about: The Gordon River bridge. If you add the Gordon River
bridges, you take the 25 seconds out of the delay in this intersection.
By doing nothing at the intersection is the fact that you built an
alternative route. And that's what the studies show, a very dramatic
drop in the delays at this intersection if in fact that's done.
So has anybody here unequivocally said we're not going to do
that between now and 2025? We think not. If you do do it, it's an
absolute waste of money to put any more money into this intersection.
So in summary, and it's the same summary we've talked about,
dramatic improvements are immediately available. Capital cost
savings of $20 million, interest cost savings of 20 million, congestion
eliminated. And we feel for the folks in Golden Gate and elsewhere
that have been, we think, unnecessarily delayed, not only in the PM,
which has been our focus, but as Rei testified here, during the day.
There is absolutely no reason why that intersection should prevent --
should give anybody a delay at 10:30 in the morning, if in fact it's
optimized properly. And the delays at the adjacent intersection at 25
are shorter than with the overpass alternative.
Our recommendation is this: Authorize Parkers -- Parsons
Brinkerhoff to study our proposal and work with us to report back to
the commission within two weeks. We think that we'd come back
with a very fair, professional analysis that would in fact validate
everything that we've said here. And we think the county would be
better off. And beyond that, we would not have the delays -- if people
are concerned about delays now, if you plant an overpass in the
middle of that intersection over a period of two years, the delays that
people have talked about here in the past are totally insignificant.
And in the end it comes back to our final commonsense
approach. If you go over here and you look, you have three lanes each
way at Livingston, and over on the other side you have
Goodlette-Frank, three lanes each way. And what we're saying is put
in the middle four lanes each way, and there's absolutely no way on
236
April 13, 2004
God's green earth that we can imagine that in fact that isn't going to
handle the traffic through that intersection.
So we're saying we think you should reject the bids and you
should start the transportation division going down the road of
building an intersection for much lower cost, much less hassle, that's
going to do the job for all of us. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Tom Conrecode. He will be
followed by Janet Vasey.
MR. CONRECODE: Good afternoon, commissioners, and thank
you for the opportunity to speak today.
My name is Tom Conrecode. I am the chair elect of the
economic development council. I'm the director of the Collier
Building Association. I'm next year's chair of the Floridians for Better
Transportation. I'm a founding member and executive committee
member of the Southwest Florida Transportation Initiative. I've
worked transportation here for a very long time and I understand how
the networks work, I understand how things are processed.
I'm here today to ask you to support the construction of this
overpass. And I'll do it by putting things in perspective. Ten years
ago I was here before the county commission, a different commission.
I was at a different podium. I was a staff member. And I was trying
to advance Livingston Road in 1994 and was told then by a county
commission that was responding to a group of citizens, a relatively
small group, and I will say there were 40 of them, that were trying to
prevent that road from being completed. It had been in the county's
long-range plan since 1974. The right-of-way was dedicated
beginning in 1974 for portions of that road. And here we are 10 years
later waiting and praying for Livingston Road to open up. You can't
deny that it's needed today. And I will tell you it was needed 10 years
ago when I sat, or I stood at that podium and asked the county
commission to respond, to look at their model, to understand it, to
believe in it, to trust in it and to go forward with the plan that they had
237
April 13, 2004
adopted.
It wasn't a new project, it wasn't pie in the sky. I asked them then
to move forward with the project. I'm asking you today to move
forward with the project. It's needed, it's necessary. I can tell, you as
many different experts as you bring in, as many different models as
you're going to run, you're going to come up with just as many
different sets of numbers. It's needed. If any of you don't believe it,
drive that like many of the people from Golden Gate Estates or other
parts of the community do, every single day, all day long.
A good example of that was a story that Larry Hannan (phonetic)
had done a few years ago, or about a year ago, and he timed traffic
flow and movement through all those portions of the road network.
He was the proof and he demonstrated it in print for you. But if you
don't believe that, do it yourself, drive it every day. And I ask you to
move forward with the plan. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Janet Vasey. She'll be
followed by Dex Groose.
MS. VASEY: Good afternoon, commissioners, Janet Vasey, for
the record.
First I would like to speak for the productivity committee. Sue
Filson is handing out a copy of the letter signed April 5th by our
chairman, Joe Swaja, that tells you in the first paragraph that our
committee was in favor of the overpass 5-4. It's says in the first
paragraph, and I quote, eight members in attendance expressed their
individual opinions verbally, and one absent member provided a
written opinion.
While no formal vote was taken, no motion, no second, no vote,
five members were in favor of the overpass and four were opposed to
it.
In spite of what you've heard from any other sources, this letter
represents the formal position of the productivity committee.
Now, I would like to speak for myself. Four years ago on March
238
April 13, 2004
7th, 2000, I was in this room as a member of the productivity
committee for a transportation workshop to formulate an action plan
that would jump start our road construction program. We looked back
on three years without any new road construction and we vowed that
we'd be proactive, not reactive in the future.
I think we're at a defining moment now. What will your legacy
be? Will you be the commission that acted to meet our road
construction needs? So far the answer is yes. You've got most, if not
all, of the roads in Collier County under construction, and you've even
found a way to pay for it. I'm sure you know the road legacy of the
prior board of county commissioners. Many people can name those
commissioners that not only dropped the ball on three years of road
construction, but also closed public roads through Glen Eagle,
Countryside and Foxfire, cutting off normal traffic flows between
Radio Road and Davis Boulevard.
So what about your road construction? You won't have to wait
until 2025 to find out. Without the overpass, you'll probably find out
in three or four years. You won't be retired somewhere out of the area
or in an old folks home. You'll probably still be in office.
Do you want people sitting in traffic on Golden Gate, on a
parking lot with a level of service F, remembering who failed to plan
ahead for traffic that six expert consultant studies said would be on
this roadway after the 1-75 interchange opened?
Now, your transportation administrator, Norm Feder, has
answered every question and investigated every suggested alternative
to the tune of $500,000 of taxpayer money. And every expert, I
repeat, expert, including Parsons Brinkerhoff, has said that the
intersection fails and an overpass is needed.
Due diligence has been done, and then some. Now I hope you
will look beyond parochial interest and do what is best for the whole
county and have your road construction legacy be one of proaction
that provides a smooth flowing, efficient road transportation network.
239
April 13, 2004
I hope you'll authorize the bid process on this overpass and that
you'll continue to support the overpass. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Dex Groose. He will be
followed by your final speaker, Tammie Nemecek.
MR. GROOSE: Madam Chairman, commissioners, I'm Dex
Groose. I live at 5202 Kensington High Street.
As vice chairman of the productivity committee, I can tell you
we have heard many presentations from the transportation department
and others on the overpass issue over the past one and a half years.
But we still remain divided as to its value. Why aren't the merits of
this project more obvious?
I have spent a career evaluating competing ideas as a value
engineer, including who makes better aircraft and who makes better
aircraft engines. In my business one has to ask simple questions like
what does it do and what does it cost compared to the alternatives.
The function of the overpass is to reduce delay. Pure and simple.
It reduces delay in the Golden Gate Parkway corridor from U.S. 41 to
Santa Barbara.
I have recently learned that the improvement is less than 20
seconds, compared to at grade improvements. For $14 million less
cost. For $28 million less cost when you consider the financing.
In my opinion, 20 seconds of less delay for $28 million is not
much bang for the buck. Golden Gate residents deserve more
immediate relief now. More immediate relief. If we are building this
overpass for the east Collier residents, why make them wait three
years or more before they see improvement? At grade improvements
will offer essentially the same corridor benefit in less time and with
less construction disruption, and at much less cost.
Why not apply the Livingston Road fix to Airport Road? The
Livingston Road intersection in 2025 will carry 93 percent of the
traffic of Airport Road intersection without an overpass. Let's apply all
the future enhancements for the Livingston Road intersection to
240
April 13, 2004
Airport Road. We ought to apply the same standard to fix the same
conditions.
In summary, the overpass does not improve corridor traffic flow
significantly enough to warrant a $28 million expenditure. I would
urge you to approve this one last short study by -- as recommended
here by Mr. McCanna, to have Parsons look at this. Because finally, I
think the opponents of the overpass are getting some of the same
excellent traffic analysis, with the help of Mr. Mudd, that the
transportation department's had. And I think that we're starting to see
some really good ideas come out of this, and it really merits your
further consideration. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Tammie Nemecek.
MS. NEMECEK: Good evening, Madam Chairman and
commissioners. I'm here today on behalf of the economic
development council. My name is Tammie Nemecek and I serve as
executive director for the EDC.
On behalf of the board of directors of the EDC and our members,
I'm here in support of the overpass project. I think that your staff, led
by Norman Feder, has done a wonderful job in doing the analysis for
this overpass project.
Looking at the work force needs in this community that we deal
with on a daily basis, and the ability for us to work continuously with
existing companies to help them expand, as well as recruit companies
into the community, the need to have proper transportation routes is
essential.
The work force availability here in Collier County is growing.
We're seeing a more dynamic work force, universities, colleges, LWlT
(phonetic) Center are all growing. We're attracting more younger,
more educated people to this community, based on census numbers.
I think that these opportunities for our community to be proactive
with our transportation routes is essential for our community to be
proactive in this effort and help our community grow and
241
April 13, 2004
accommodate that growth that we all know is come coming here, and
that we are properly planning for for that growth.
So again, on behalf of the EDC, I do urge you to approve the
overpass project and move forward. The lights are all green and
they're all timed properly. Let's move forward. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, that's all of our speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we got a presentation by --
or presentation by staff here?
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, what I'd like to do is respond to a
couple of things. As you know, we have sought to study every
alternative, as we've said, that's come down and give it serious
consideration. We've done so with even the issue you had before you
today.
The concept that's being presented is eight lanes. We did go out
and we analyzed that eight lanes. We were asked to analyze it with
different issues considered in it. We did that as well, and made sure
we provided it to all parties. And that's part of what you saw today.
What I'd like to do is ask the consultant that did that analysis to
give you some feel for what they found out of that study. I've heard a
lot of numbers thrown around, I'd like to hear that.
The other thing I'd like to do is make sure that you realize -- what
I keep hearing is not a lot of savings. And the amount of savings is
understated, but nonetheless, for 20 million, 30 million, 40 million, as
I keep hearing it. And the fact of the matter is construction and
right-of-way are about 34 million.
But what I think you'll see very shortly is, if I go to go eight lanes
and I don't have it merge right in front of Bear's Paw with everybody
trying to jockey in position right at the signal and consistent with the
discussions that staff had with Mr. McCanna, Mitchell and Mr.
Weeks, they agreed that in fact you need to carry it just before
242
April 13, 2004
Goodlette-Frank Road and over to Livingston. If I do that, I'm talking
about right-of-way and construction, conservatively about $45 million.
So it's not a savings of money. Plus it does not operate as
efficiently. And there's some question about whether or not it could
meet the level of service.
So having said that, I'm going to ask Dave Muntean with
Kimley-Horn to give you some background on that. And then I'm
going to ask you to view a very short show that shows you where
eight lanes and how it would fit in, what some of the issues we'd have
to deal with are.
The last thing I'll do is point out to you that we keep hearing
these numbers and these traffic that it just materializes. Fact of the
matter is, again, you need to use a network, not start from one point,
as I've presented to you before. The numbers are a diversion of traffic
throughout the system. And so we start double counting it, we start
making credits and doing all that. But the fact of the matter is, I'll tell
you to look at two things. If in fact all the traffic was coming off, as is
shown and coming through the intersection today, coming off of 1-75,
coming down Livingston through the intersection, or coming over to
Airport and coming down through the intersection, then I should see
significant reductions once I open Livingston on Pine Ridge, and yet
those numbers don't show. It continues to show some growth.
Also on Livingston I'm showing 31,000 vehicles a day, instead of
28 projected. As we told you, we have more of a 13 to 15-year plan
rather than 20 because of our control totals each time. And yet you
don't see great reductions in the volumes along the other roadways
until you go further out into the network. So the fact of the matter is
those numbers are a matter of diversion, they're not just spontaneously
generated.
But having said that, let me ask Dave Muntean to walk you
through the testing that we're asked to do and then we'll show you a
very short graphic and then open it up to any questions you have.
243
April 13, 2004
MR. MUNTEAN: Hello once again. This is --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Your name, for the record?
MR. MUNTEAN: I'm sorry. Dave Muntean. I work with
Kimley-Hom and Associates out of Tallahassee, Florida.
I've been working on this project for about a year and three
months, I think, and this is the meeting I think where the tire meets the
road. Some of the things that Mr. McCanna mentioned up here, how
he works and with the numbers, and presents the numbers to them.
And I just have to tell you, in our profession, that kind of number --
the way we look at the numbers wouldn't fly in our profession. And
I'm just -- it's just one of those things where if Donald Trump was my
boss, he'd probably look at me and say you're fired.
But basically I think, honestly, if he's going to present this kind
of information, he needs to hire an expert to back up his information.
I feel like that's crucial when it comes to making community decisions
like this, if that's the case when you have opposition. And I just want
to throw out -- I know that I've mentioned that before, but I want to
reemphasize again.
He did mention that he looked at my report. I gave him a report.
I worked last Friday. I met his Friday midnight deadline at about
7:00 in the evening on Friday. And I did -- he did agree with some of
the results that were in there. But there was a lot about that letter, I'm
not sure it's the same one that he read that I wrote, but there were a lot
of-- there was a lot information in that report that he didn't -- that he
failed to mention to you.
And what I thought I'd do is give you a little bit of that additional
information. He picked out one particular number, didn't talk about
the other two pages. So I just want to share that with you.
Number one, there's 12 movements that enter at an intersection.
There's left, throughs and right tums on all four approaches. There's
12 total movements. All three of the scenarios that Mr. McCanna had
us analyze resulted in five to seven of those 12 movements being level
244
April 13, 2004
of service E or F. Okay?
Now, the right tums came out great, they're the easiest movement
in the entire intersection, and there's very little delay when you want
to increase laneages on the right tums. And those tend to skew the
overall intersection results. So when you look at it, you don't look at
just the bottom line, you've got to look at the movements and find out
-- you remember the comp. plan or whatever standard he talked about
meeting level of service E on the roadway? Well, on the roadway, on
the movements that you travel through on Golden Gate, those are
hitting level of service F and level of service E. But he failed to tell
you about that. I mean, the report I gave him has all the information
in it. It does have level of service E and F on approaches, which are
critical through and left turn movements at that intersection, and that's
what he's quoting you from.
The other thing is, is that there's another type of analysis that he
wanted us to analyze, it has another intersection capacity utilization
level of service in there, which shows you the volume compared to the
capacity. All three of his scenarios showed that the volume would
exceed the capacity. That is what level of service E and F is. Your
volume is exceeding the capacity of the intersection.
So I don't see in any way, shape or form, how you slice or dice it,
you know, how that's deemed to be acceptable. I just don't get it.
One of the things, the size of the intersection, okay. We get to
the eight-lane thing, he asked us to do triple left tums on each
approach, add right -- dual right turns on the approaches and we end
up with this monstrous intersection. To tell you the truth, the size of
that is a little bit larger than other intersections in the U.S. that have
very high, dangerous crash rates, okay? Just to let you know, when
you get too big, you start getting in areas where you don't really
increase the capacity -- we blow it up as big as we can get it, we still
get unacceptable level of service on the approaches. So even with Mr.
McCanna's information and what he wanted to see.
245
April 13, 2004
You know, we were -- the most valuable part, outcome of the
report I gave him is not really in the report. But what he asked us to
do, when he wouldn't allow us or requested us not to change certain
parameters in the analysis, we have an eight-lane Golden Gate
Parkway as one of the suggestions that he had, and I don't see any
problem with recommending that, but we're using six-lane traffic
volumes on Golden Gate in this analysis and we still have
unacceptable level of service. If I were to do the analysis with
professional due care, I'd have eight-lane traffic volumes on that road,
because two lanes, four lanes, six lanes or eight lanes, you're going to
have more traffic that wants to come use the road. So the traffic
volumes would be a little bit higher in the eight lane. Which means
the level of service would be worse than the already unacceptable
levels of service that we've already calculated. And I'm not the first
one that's come up with undesirable level of service for an at-grade
solution in the year 2025.
So basically, we've -- you know, we've basically sliced and diced
it every which way that we've been requested, and the same answer
comes about. And I just wanted to throw that at you, and even the
seventh consultant, Mr. McCanna, his solution comes out as
undesirable level of service as well.
MR. PUTAANSUU: I'll bring up my --
MR. MUDD: Your name for the record, sir?
MR. PUTAANSUU: For the record, my name is Gary
Putaansuu, I'm your project manager with the separated overpass. I'm
a registered professional engineer in the states of Washington and
Florida. I've been involved in the design of construction of highways
for 38 years. As the -- get this thing brought up.
As the project manager, it's my job to take a design concept like
this and develop it into a set of plans for construction. So what I'd like
to do is take you through that process.
Okay, this is the -- this is the eight-lane roadway as it comes up
246
April 13, 2004
into Airport Road and as described earlier. And so when I take that,
okay, we go into--
MR. MUDD: No, you've got to put it on slide show. You don't
have it there yet.
MR. PUTAANSUU: Okay. We work with a standard section
and -- for six-lane similar to this. What I've done is added the fourth
lane on to it. It's 22-foot medians and 12-foot lanes, four on each side.
You've got a utility strip, six-foot sidewalk and a 12-foot area out
there for buffer, for landscape, and it also provides room for utilities.
And in areas as necessary there's walls be constructed. Okay -- oops, I'm going backwards.
Okay. As I bring it out on the project, I look first here at the
Estuary entrance. I look at that closer. What you see in behind there
is an FPL transmission line that's directly behind the wall.
As I move down the road, you see the landscaping and the wall.
And just beyond that, here again you can see the transmission towers.
If I look at an aerial over this intersection, what I see are golf
greens and part of that golf course that are directly in behind. MR. MUDD: State the intersection again, sir.
MR. PUTAANSUU: This is the intersection of Bear's
Paw/Estuary, okay? And on the north side is the Estuary.
So this section, when I try to bring it through there, I'm going to
encounter that wall and that FPL line.
As I look down the road and look at the aerial, you see fairways
on both sides. We see buffers that are -- that -- driving down the road
they look lush and thick, but when you look at them over with an
aerial, they're not that awful thick. And when you go into them, it's
going to open things up.
So what I would propose from there is, on the left side you see
the golf course and Estuary. I wouldn't go into that, I would leave that
FPL alone. I'd maintain the existing features there down to the curb.
Under that curb there are a bunch of utilities. There's an eight-inch
247
April 13, 2004
force main, as well as underground telephone and television cable.
What I'd do is build towards the median, the additional lane, and I
would put the barrier down the middle. Because we have utilities on
both sides, I'd put the lighting on the barrier, and I would widen
towards Bear's Paw and the easement that the 36 and 24-inch water
mains are in. We'd have to get another easement from the city utilities
and build into their area.
This is what a median barrier with light on it looks like. There's
a glare screen there as well.
When I go down and start at the Goodlette end to put this
four-lane road in, I find that the businesses there on the right, that are
right close, we cannot add the lane there, we'd have to wait until after
the intersection before we could build it. We could pull that out -- that
fourth lane off, it's a right only lane, and bring it down to Goodlette
and that's how we'd make that work.
As I move up the road, you'll see in the aerial down at that
bottom lower left that there's a weir. When I go out in the field and I
look at that, in the photograph, you'll see that that weir is very, very
close to the roadway. That weir would have to be rebuilt. You might
think that we could move to the other side of the road, but as you see
on the upper photo, there transmission towers running right on the
back of that sidewalk. I cannot move to the north without moving the
towers.
I would be going into the Bear's Paw, into their golf course, into
that area with the water mains. You can see the number of utilities
that are underground that we're dealing with on both sides.
Then let's take this same section from Bear's Paw and take it
towards Livingston Road. When you look out there, it looks like we've
got a lot more room, maybe it will work. But as you come across and
you look in front of Naples Grande, there's room to add one lane, but
when I add a second lane, I'm into that natural barrier between the
development and the road. I've got to take that out in order to fit
248
April 13, 2004
utilities, the sidewalk and the lanes that I need.
When I go down to the Grey Oaks area, you've got a golf green
that's close to Livingston there. In the lower comer there I've got a
photograph of when you go into that FPL facility there, you can see
by the -- see in the daylight through the trees that it's not really that
thick. When I go on that road, the photo above it, that's right -- that's
the green. If you look close at that, you can see the flag on the green.
Over to the left's an aerial, that right-of-way on that upper line, that's
where -- the right-of-way we'd need in order to build the road that we
have planned now. If I add another lane, I'm taking that much more
out of that, it's going to get thin like it is at the other end.
So when I look at this section and I look at the impacts on this
side of the road, I probably could be making a decision to put a barrier
down the middle to reduce the impacts as much as I can so we can
build it.
Okay, here's the overpass project. When we got into it initially
we were going to have 12-foot lanes and a wider landscape median
than we do now. Because of the canal and our desire not to impact the
other side of the -- and to leave the natural beauty that we have over
there, we kept our lanes to 11-foot, we kept our -- reduced them to
11-foot, and we kept our median down to a minimum so that we could
put a partial wall on the one side and retain what we have there today.
When I add another left mm, as is proposed, I'm into that canal
and I have no other choice -- well, I have other choices, I can recut the
canal into the golf course, take out the trees and I'm right in the golf
course, or I can put a wall on the other side.
This view is an aerial on the left of where that right-of-way is.
This shows you the fact that there's a hillside -- you know, a hill -- or a
slope on the other side. And you can tell by the aerial that here again,
like in other places, there's trees, it looks thick, but it's really not that
thick when you get in to it. I'll have to at the minimum -- you know,
like I say, a wall is what we'd have to put in there. We'd have to put
249
April 13, 2004
the -- you know, put it into kind of like an aqueduct going down
through there.
You might wonder, well, can you move to the west? Well, if I
move to the west, I'm into the Bear's Paw Golf Course on the other
side and there's a ton of utilities squeezed in between the road and the
right-of-way.
Now we look at the intersection with all these proposed lanes.
And it's hard to get things in perspective, you know, for distances, so
what I did is I went out and took a -- took a picture of the Livingston
Road intersection that you're familiar with, that six lanes going
through there heading to the south. It's a double left, triple through
and a single right, okay?
What we're proposing -- or this -- the prior section here shows
nine lanes going through. That's half again what you see at Livingston
Road today. Those -- the monotube that has the lights on it up above,
that's going to have to span half again what it does today. It's going to
have to be more massive than what you see. Then think about the
amount of water that's going to be coming across that roadway in a
storm, over nine lanes and coming across those last two lanes, we've
got to pick it up with the drainage system.
Then we start thinking about all those lanes. We've got a -- with
the overpass, the decision points are points that we can have signs on
the side of the road that people can see so they can know where to go.
In this instance, with all these lanes, we're going to have to go to
overhead signs. With the distances we're talking about is -- it's going
to take truss-type systems to bridge them.
I want to go back, just to give you, here again, another -- this
thing, from gutter to gutter, side to side is 175 feet. I've counted the
tile up there, there's 30 tile at two feet, 60 feet from your chair to that
far wall. You'll get halfway across the right side of that roadway to
that wall. Three times that distance to get all the way across the
intersection. It's big. And all the stuff that has to go over it has to be
25O
April 13, 2004
stout in order to bridge that. We're going to have to put -- I don't think
the monotube will work, we're probably going to have to do truss-type
systems.
And then we start thinking about pedestrians, okay? This one, in
order to get the timing down to get more cars through there, they said
they don't want pedestrian crossings down there, and as big as it is,
you wouldn't want it, so we need to provide for them. These are older
structures, they don't meet ADA standards. It takes 240 feet to ramp
down from an 18-foot structure, okay? In Tampa what they've done,
because those ramps are so expensive, they put elevators at the ends.
This structure cost 1.3 million. We need three of them.
Okay, here's the line work, here's Bear's Paw intersection. It's a
full opening with a light with a great -- you know, with the Parkway.
When I go to the eight-lane freeway, we've got a barrier down the
middle. It's right in, right out.
When I go up to Poinciana, right now they have right in, right
out, but they have a U-mm ability short of the intersection. They also
have the ability to U-turn at Bear's Paw.
When I put this freeway through, it's going to be blocked off.
They're going to be right in, right out, no ability to U-turn up there, no
ability to U-turn at Bear's Paw. They're going to have to go up to
someplace up towards Livingston or go back to Goodlette Road to get
in and out. It doesn't provide for good access.
When I go the Parkway further up, by Naples -- behind Grey
Oaks, and in this far section, when we get down, we got the median
and I over-- put the lines down on that, it looks like it fits in there, but
keep in mind, that's the right-of-way. Actually it's a lane wider in
each direction. We're going to have to go further into adjacent
property to put it in.
Here's in the overpass area. Okay, what we did is we stuck to the
curbs in front of Poinciana and we added and built up there. When you
bring it across, the -- those curves that you go through there, the
251
April 13, 2004
reverse curves, when you widen it out that much, it really can't work
that way. You've got superelevation, runoff on it. What that amounts
to is we're banked one way and we're going to go the other way. And
that does not meet a standard. We'd have to design and bring it up
across the other side of the road, you know, if it were to come about.
There are people that think that we're not going to continue to
grow. I did some checking. In L.A. Times, there was an article less
than a month ago, it was a full article, it talks about how the young
professionals, the young college graduates are coming to Naples. It's
attracting them. The census -- it says in here, the census found that
this city of 21,000 and surrounding Collier County has been acquiring
young single college educated residents at a faster clip than any other
part of the United States.
I checked the New York Times, they have a big spread on
Naples. In the last -- here again, in the last month, just to find one of
the midwesters, one in the last year in St. Louis. So they're all talking
about how this is one of the fastest growing areas, how desirable it is
here. They have a lot of readership. Those folks are coming.
When they come here, are they going to look at the natural things
that attract us all to come here, or are they going to bring L.A. with
them? Thank you.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner?
MR. McCANNA: Madam Chair, may I have one minute to
address the untrue statements that are attributed to me by the
newspaper?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, one minute.
MR. McCANNA: In case anybody in the room is trying to figure
out what people have been talking about here for the past things,
they're talking about things that we haven't proposed. If you -- I made
a big point of saying that in fact our proposal was the base case
alternative developed by who? Developed by these people here and
the addition of one lane each way. And they keep talking about left
252
April 13, 2004
mm lanes and right mm lanes and triples that we didn't propose, but
yet that's essentially a big part of the argumentation that's going on
here.
In addition, they say that we agreed to this and that. All we did is
say we wanted to find out how this intersection operates. It's clear that
the professionalism of this consultant that who has been dealing here,
in my opinion, is about the poorest of anybody I've seen. That is in
fact --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Wait a minute, sir.
MR. McCANNA: The evidence, the evidence is -- he's presented
things that I didn't even say in this proposal.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sir, you just made a statement that
you wanted to retract, but then you're up here starting to bash other
people. So it's got to be one way or the other, sir.
MR. McCANNA: Well, most of what has just occurred here is
things that we didn't propose. We didn't propose all of these lanes that
they're talking about. And if anybody wants to look at something --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. McCanna.
MR. McCANNA: -- take a look at that. I mean, that is --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, sir.
MR. McCANNA: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Norm?
MR. FEDER: Madam Chair, what I was going to say, and I
guess apropos right now as well, is that the base case was six lanes,
maxing out all your turn lanes, with one exception from what you saw,
and that was the right turn lane northbound because of the canal
issues. So most everything else you saw was exactly the base case
with adding two additional lanes on Golden Gate to go eight lanes and
maxing out the turn lanes. Because the concept was what's my best at
grade, and basically you had the triple left, dual rights, with the
exception of the northbound, because of there the canal.
However, what we were asked to do for modeling purposes was
253
April 13, 2004
to do just that, eight-lane Golden Gate, keep Airport six, triple lefts,
dual rights all the way around, and to take out the pedestrian
movements to try and get it to get to a passing grade.
And so that's what we presented to you. We just wanted to put in
perspective some of the issues so you well understand that it's not the
bucket of paint and the signal timing, tweaking that was presented to
you as the concept some time ago.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Norm.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Norm, I'm confused about this.
What I saw was not eight-laning. It was eight lanes on one side of the
road. In fact, nine lanes on one side of the road, and four or five on
the other side of the road.
MR. FEDER: What you saw was eight-laning throughout most
of the length. At the intersection it does go to triple lefts and dual
rights, and that's where you see nine lanes. Once you got four for the
through lanes, triple left, seven, two rights is nine. Now, what you also
saw in the rest of the presentation, as we looked at it, because when
you go eight lanes through the intersection you need to carry it
through for a distance. At first we were looking at a merge before
Bear's Paw. The issue was that you couldn't have everybody try to run
that light and go into a merge, so you brought it down. The other one
was obviously Livingston. And we asked and we were told yes, we
mean from Goodlette-Frank to Livingston, so that's what we looked at.
But in that main line you saw four lanes in each direction, with a
Jersey barrier trying to keep it as tight as we could.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And how long do the additional
lanes extend from the intersection?
MR. FEDER: The additional lanes, I think you got the storage
for the lefts and rights.
Gary, how long did you put in for the lefts and rights on the triple
lefts and dual rights? It would be the same as you assumed relative to
254
April 13, 2004
the six-laning where you're maximizing the length you need for the
volume you have to get.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Did it extend from the intersection
back to, let's say, Estuary and Bear's Paw entrance? MR. FEDER: No, no.
MR. PUTAANSUU: No. No, what we had is pretty much for
storage about the same as we have in the -- in the overpass down there
to handle those same movements, which is back just in the area or just
beyond Poinciana's access point.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Could you state your name, please?
MR. PUTAANSUU: I'm Gary Putaansuu.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, let me make one
observation, since there has been some controversy brought up here.
This is a very complex process. I understand traffic engineering is not
something a lay person can grasp immediately. But I think that we
have to recognize that when we, the Board of County Commissioners,
first saw this project, it was an overpass of Golden Gate over Airport
Road.
Citizens raised questions about what happens downstream further
west, Goodlette Road. And sure enough, they were right, that there
was a problem at Goodlette Road, but it had not been included in the
initial presentation that we gave to us and so -- just calm down, Norm,
okay?
The result was that the staff wanted to take a look at Goodlette
Road, and in fact came up with an innovative solution to solve the
problem at Goodlette Road.
There was a question by the public about what was going to
happen with Livingston Road. I still am not sure what's going to
happen with Livingston Road, since we're going to have a lot of traffic
there.
And then there was a concern about backed up traffic eastbound
on Golden Gate Parkway. And members of the public suggested some
255
April 13, 2004
solutions. And guess what? Solutions worked.
So I think we should be careful in attempting to disparage the
recommendations of the public, as has been done. (Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because I really believe the
fundamental problem we have here is credibility. And it's a difficult
issue to deal with because it is so complex. And it's essential that we
deal with these issues in a very professional way and recognize that
the public has had some valid input into this process.
And I will recognize that you and the staff have done what you
were asked to do with
respect to analyzing alternatives. I believe that there is the perception
on behalf of many people in the public that there is a syndrome called
target fixation here, that there is a fixation on building an overpass and
that overpass is going to get built, one way or the other. And I don't
know that any other analysis will result in any different conclusion.
Quite frankly, the problem comes down to how many
commissioners really believe that this overpass is worth the money for
what incremental advantage it provides. And I think that's the
fundamental question, and I don't know that anybody is going to
answer that for us.
But I just wanted to address this issue of public input and I don't
want to have anyone disparaging the public or Mr. McCanna. They've
spent a lot of time working on this issue. And in fact on a number of
points they have been right, so I just like to make sure we recognize
that.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I would just like to thank the
public for their input. I'd also like to thank the staff for their input into
this. And I think we've pretty much studied this thing pretty
thoroughly. We've gone through a lot of best case scenarios trying to
256
April 13, 2004
figure out the best way to handle this whole thing, and I believe that
we spent enough money on this whole project. I think it comes to a
point now in time where we'll have to find out if we have necessary
votes here to see if-- where this overpass is going to go.
And I make a motion that we approve this resolution to put this
out for bid.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, I have a motion on the floor from
Commissioner Halas to put this overpass out for bid, and I have a
second from Commissioner Coletta. And Commissioner Henning,
you have -- you have your light up?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I do. The -- you know, the
issue, Commissioner Coyle, with retiming of the lights did help the
eastbound traffic. As the first speaker testified, that it -- on the backs
of the people traveling westbound on Golden Gate Parkway. And I
got a phone call one weekend from one of my constituents and stating
that it takes three light cycles to go to the City of Naples on Golden
Gate Parkway, trying to get through Airport Road interchange.
And so I went out there one afternoon and witnessed it myself,
and actually took a picture and sent it to Jim Mudd and made a hard
copy and gave it to our staff. I don't know if they have it here now,
but it is a real eye opener. Whatever we do on that small improvement
was on the back of somebody else. You've got to recognize, when you
take away from one side, it's got to come from the other side.
I'm not here to debate you, I'm here to just here to tell you my
experience in the working people that have to drive through that
intersection.
What's being asked today is to go out to bid. If there's a majority
of the votes, essentially is we're moving forward with the overpass. I
don't want anybody to get the impression that we're not.
I was trying to entice the folks that -- Mr. McCanna and Mr.
Leach from Grey Oaks, no matter what our consultant says or no
257
April 13, 2004
matter what our staff says, they're not going to believe it. And I still
encourage you to hire a consultant yourself to -- an expert to lead us
through this process, because if there is another alternative, then that is
something that we can still consider. We have to base our decisions
on best available information. And I appreciate your experts -- your
expertise. You have a lot more expertise than I do, but I don't think
either one of us have an expertise in transportation, and that's where
we have a problem with it.
And, you know, if it is an eight-lane expressway, then we have to
consider that, along with the character of the community.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I think there's been a lot of
great things said and I'm not going to belabor this much longer, but
probably the most interesting civic involvement process I've ever been
through in my life. It certainly has been open to the public, there's
been a tremendous amount of input. Half a million dollars spent on
consultants, not one but five or six. It's gone a long ways.
But I'll tell you, it all can be summed up. Just recently I was at a
luncheon, and the sweetest little lady, I'm not going to say old, just
mature, came up to me and she said--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Like Donna.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, not like -- it's Donna's
birthday, in case anyone missed it yet.
And she said to me, you know, Mr. Coletta, I really like you.
She said, and I like a lot of the things you've done out there, but what's
wrong with you on this overpass. Don't you get it. And I said gee, I
said, what don't I get? She said oh, that thing's an abomination, you
know, and all the things that you said earlier.
So I asked her, I says well, tell me this, how many times do you
think you're going to use that in the course of the day? She said oh,
I'll never go that way. And that summed it up.
And I said well, you may not, but there's thousands of people that
258
April 13, 2004
do. The work force of Naples is about 20 percent, I believe, of the
total work force of Collier County, but only a small fraction of those
people live in the City of Naples. They all come from outside. And
believe me, these businesses are going to grow as time goes by. More
and more demands are going to be made on the highway. They have
to be accommodated somehow.
We can't put the burden on Pine Ridge any more than we already
have. We can't say okay, Davis, because we're not going to build this
overpass, you take the burden, keep it out of our neighborhood.
No one likes to have a lot of traffic through their neighborhood,
but the truth of the matter is everybody has to have their fair share. I
know that's very hard to take. I think you put up an admirable fight
and the point that you got to now, you really have. I've listened very
carefully to all the arguments. I met with staff many times when you
raised the hair on the back of my neck with some of your concerns.
And they were explained to me in great detail. And I'm not a
technician when it comes to building roads, but by gosh, you got to --
you listen and you take it in. And when it comes right down it to it,
we have to go with our best judgment calls that we can possibly come
up with. And that's why I'm still in favor of the overpass.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, just one final comment on
this. I know there's a lot of anecdotal evidence about how many --
how long you have to sit in line at a light and all that. I've
experienced that, too.
But these things happen because there's some gawkers on the
road looking at something, it slows down traffic. There's just lots of
things that impede traffic that don't have anything to do with the road
network.
But I really believe that one of the things that concerns the
public, and it certainly concerns me, is that we don't have a stabilized
network from which to collect good data, in my opinion. And what
259
April 13, 2004
I'm saying is that we're in the process of trying to change the pattern of
traffic in Collier County by moving more commercial out further east
so people will have places to work and shop and that sort of thing
without having to drive into the coastal areas. And we're hoping that
that will diminish traffic coming in toward the coastal areas. We have
-- I can't prove that, but that's what we hope to do.
We also haven't optimized the traffic light timing. Every day
coming to and from the government center, I run into ridiculous
situations where traffic is stopped for cross traffic that isn't there, and
that shouldn't be happening. So we haven't optimized our
intersections and our traffic signals. We've still got lots of things
under construction that in themselves impact the pattern of traffic we
are experiencing today. We're trying to change traffic patterns for the
entire county. We don't know what the result of that is going to be.
And so the bottom line, at least for me, is that I'd feel a lot more
comfortable finding out how these other things work first before I
spend $30 something million on an overpass that I'm not sure I really
need. So that's where I am.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And one last comment, I guess, before we
go to the vote, unless anybody else wants to speak. I haven't really
been a proponent of the overpass at all. And -- but I also realize both
sides are giving us what they feel are figures, facts and figures. But
we all know, really, it's guesswork. We're trying to guess at these
projections. We're hoping that we get them right. Each side feels that
they are absolutely right. And we have engineers that come in, and I
bet if we had six engineers, we'd have six different opinions, unless
the facts are provided to them and then are the -- or the data is
provided to them and is that data correct?
So what I'm asking is, as we go to bid, and it looks like we're
going to be doing this, what I ask of the transportation department is
when they come back with a bid, I want a guaranteed, guaranteed
260
April 13, 2004
actual cost bid, 100 percent. Not to come back time and time and time
again with change orders. I want to be able to take that bid and take it
over to the Clerk of Courts and say this is all we're going to pay on it,
so this is it, pal, you know. That way we're going to get a true and
actual figure, so when we talk about it later on, we'll know what that
figure is. I mean, tonight -- today it's been tossed around from 29
million to 50 million and we've heard everything in between. I want
to know what the cost is. So I will vote for this.
So all in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
MR. MUDD: Opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, it passes 4-1, with Commissioner
Coyle dissenting. Thank you.
Item #1 OK
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO ACCEPT THE
DONATION OF A 32-FOOT REGAL BOAT REPORTEDLY
APPRAISED AT $60,000.00 FROM ROBERT AND BETTY
SOUTHWICK TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AS EX-OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE ISLES OF
CAPRI FIRE RESCUE DISTRICT AND TO AUTHORIZE THE
SIGNING OF AN 8283 TAX FORM BY CHIEF RODRIGUEZ IN
ACKNOWI.FJDGFJMENT OF THE DONATION- APPROVFD
Okay, we go on to Item 10(K).
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, 10(K) is --just let me get my notes
here for a second. 10(K) is the Board of County Commissioners to
261
April 13, 2004
accept a donation of a 32-foot Regal boat reportedly appraised at
$60,000 from Robert and Betty Southwick to the Board of County
Commissioners as ex-officio, the governing board of the Isles of Capri
Fire Rescue District, and to authorize the signing of an 8283 tax form
by Chief Rodriguez in acknowledgement of the donation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I know he was here earlier. Is he still
here?
MR. MUDD: He's right there by the podium underneath the
clock.
CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Hi, Rod.
CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Emilio Rodriguez for the record, Chief,
Isles of Capri Fire and Rescue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: If you want to wait just a minute, it's
okay. Or you can go ahead, whichever you prefer. We can hear you.
CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: I'm just here to -- if you have any type of
concerns --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: -- or any questions on it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion to approve and a
second. Motion to approve by Commissioner Henning and a second
by Commissioner Coyle. Any discussion? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
262
April 13, 2004
MR. MUDD: And you've got a boat.
CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Rod.
Item #10L
DIRECT STAFF TO REVISE THE LITTORAL SHELF
STANDARDS OF THE LCD TO CLEARLY INDICATE THAT
NON-FUNCTIONING LITTORAL SHELVES SHALL MEET THE
I,ISTED CRITERIA IDENTIFIED IN THE IJDC- APPROVED
Okay, we go on to 10(L).
MR. MUDD: 10(L), ma'am, which was formerly 16(A)(7), and
that's basically the total bid award -- excuse me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Direct staff to revise littoral
shelving standards in the LDC, clearly indicated that the
non-functional littoral shelving shall meet the listing criteria identified
in the LDC.
MS. FILSON: And Madam Chairman, I have one speaker slip.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I -- the question, I pulled
this from the consent agenda for specific reasons, and what I read here
is we're going from a shall to a may, and what I get from it is we're
asking our existing built communities to plant more littorals to meet
our present day Land Development Code. So, you know, if I'm
wrong, state where I'm wrong.
MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with
environmental services. Actually, it's the opposite way around. Staff
is asking that -- recommends that may be replaced with shall.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, that's what I meant.
Sorry.
MS. BURGESON: And the reason for that is that as this entire
263
April 13, 2004
paragraph was written and put into the Land Development Code, it's a
matter of semantics. We in error chose the wrong phrase when we
said may have to. The intent of that, as you look through A, B, C, D
and E below that is each one of those subsections identifies items that
are mandatory. Each one of those has a shall in each of those
sentences for items that shall and have to be done. The only reason
that we chose may have to is because in the beginning, you may have
to do these things if the littoral shelves are no longer functioning,
subject to the following.
So we felt that putting the language in that they may have to do
this if they're failing, subject to the following, was the appropriate
language.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. BURGESON: And as we've gone back and discussed it
with the county attorney's office and with other staff, the semantics
and the actual language we understand should have been shall.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the-- we will ask our
existing communities to
MS. BURGESON:
COMMISSIONER
MS. BURGESON:
come into new standards?
Only when they're failing.
HENN1NG: Only when they're failing, yes.
Only. And only when their study determines
that making those changes is more appropriate. But it will never
include a larger amount of area. That's the first shall. The amount
shall be the same, that won't be increased. We will never ask them --
we're not going to require that they change the slopes. We're going to
ask them to analyze it and to determine where the best place to locate
these is.
The reason for these requirements is we're finding when the code
enforcement goes out and looks at failing littoral shelf areas and has
them replant them where they are, the reason they're failing is a
number of things. One, they're either planted at improper elevations,
they're planted too close to the residential units and those people want
264
April 13, 2004
the view so they want them removed. They don't have signage, and so
they're being cleared because no one knows that they need to be
planted and preserved.
So what we're asking here is that if they go through the study and
plant them where they should be planted, we won't see them back in
code enforcement again in three years when they fail a second time,
and that happens frequently.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. These are in stormwater
storage areas within existing communities, and my concern is what is
our preference, littoral shelving or stormwater storage?
MS. BURGESON: Well, littoral plantings are a requirement.
And so what we're just looking to do here --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess I'll ask the board
members, is it stormwater storage or littoral plantings, weeds in the
stormwater area?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: To me I think it's stormwater.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think it's stormwater.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Does it have to be one or the other?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, my concern is it will be.
Once you get out there on the ground, if it's not working in a certain
area, then it has to be relocated. So littoral shelvings don't grow in
deep water, they grow in shallow water. So you have to do some
filling, you know. I think this is a bigger issue on what we want to do.
And I can tell you, the -- Ms. Burgeson, the new language with the
increased littoral or littorals that we did last year, I got a real sample of
what that is. It's great for the new communities because what it does is
attract wading birds. And I think that's the whole idea.
But -- and just like these PUD, IEOs, or whatever we want to call
them, when the existing community takes it over, or the homeowner
association takes it over, give it up, you know, I mean, besides the
preserves. And I just think changing this language is going to cause
more problems for our existing taxpayers of Collier County.
265
April 13, 2004
MS. STUDENT: IfI may, for the record, Marjorie Student. It
was in the -- Assistant County Attorney.
It was in the enforcement of this provision that this issue came up
with the may as opposed to the shall or the must. It was Bill Lorenz's
advice that the intent was a shall or must. So all this was to do was to
reflect the true intent.
What I feel that we need to do, and I don't have the comp. plan
here today, I think we may need to check this against the comp. plan
because the comp. plan may have it as an absolute requirement and
our Land Development Code cannot be inconsistent with the comp.
plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Also our Land Development
Code also states that in the urban area you must have a 25-year storm
event for stormwater storage.
MS. BURGESON: This doesn't take away any of the stormwater
storage or any of the water management or water quality issues. This
is just giving staff a way to mitigate for the already required and
already approved and accepted littoral plantings that are failing in
communities.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I still have a
concern on that, and I think that we need some more expertise input
on how this will affect stormwater storage.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what's the cost of our
existing residents?
And by the way, the Board of Commissioners by a majority
asked staff to do a fiscal impact statement to the consumer. I haven't
seen that yet on our Land Development Code changes. So I'm
requesting one on this one.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just have a question for Barbara.
We're concerned about the stormwater storage, but we also want to
know, is there plants that you can put in there that can live in a large
266
April 13, 2004
amount of water in a short period of time and then all of a sudden
when we have a dry area, these plants will still live, or are they going
to die?
And I think that's where we're really coming from, to where
people would continually have to replace the plants. Because if you
are in the rainy season and you had the littorals planted that would
sustain -- live in deep water and then all of a sudden in December they
die because we don't have the rainfall. So is there plant life that can
live in both extremes here?
MS. BURGESON: Yes. And actually let me answer that in
twofold. The first, if we don't accept their change, the language as it is
right now, code enforcement will simply require that they replant the
littoral plantings that failed in the exact approved scenario that was
approved for their-- with their lake excavation permit. So if this
doesn't get approved or isn't changed, then code enforcement will still
continue to require them to replant the plantings.
This language gives staff the opportunity to work with the
homeowners association or whoever might be on the property to do a
study do determine if the elevations were inappropriate or if the
plantings were inappropriate. There are plants that can be more
appropriately chosen that will survive better in certain areas of the
county, at certain elevations, during certain amounts of inundation,
during flooding or rainy season. There's a number of things that we
can do and that would all be captured with this study that's required
here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just so long as we don't get into a
situation where we're planting different types of littorals here,
depending upon the season. We're not here to try to increase the cost.
What we're trying to do is twofold: Is one, we want some way of
stormwater retention; and secondly, to address the environment. But
we don't want to end up to where it becomes -- we have to plant twice
a year because all of a sudden we're in a dry season and then we turn
267
April 13, 2004
into a wet season.
So what we need to do is, the answer I'm looking for, is do we
have right now off-the-shelf items that we can tell people in
homeowner associations what they can plant there without having to
go through this thing year after year after year? And we're trying --
that's what we're trying to do is contain the cost here.
MS. BURGESON: We have -- we have the beginning of those
studies and one of the staff that works with Bill Lorenz has done a lot
of research and has created different scenarios for different parts of the
county for what is the more appropriate plantings and elevations. And
so that's why we would like to have this language in there, because we
can't tell them exactly what would work best without them doing some
at least minor -- now it doesn't have to be an engineered study. It can
be something more with the homeowners association and staff. We
can go out, take a look at the property, help them analyze it. So we're
not looking to have a great cost here.
What we're actually trying to do is help bring the cost down so
that they don't have failing plants in the future and they don't have to
go back to code enforcement issues in cases in the furore when they
don't-- aren't successfully replanted.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you draw up a plan for
them?
MS. BURGESON: We can't draw up a plan for them, but we can
work with them on what type of plants. And we can work with
sending them to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A professional?
MS. BURGESON: Well, the -- I'm trying to think -- not the Soil
Conservation Service but the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Extension Service?
MS. BURGESON: Extension Service. But we can also -- they
can come in and work with Melissa Hennig, and she's been working
with staff. We do go out and do site visits and there's no cost, and we
268
April 13, 2004
go out in the field with them. So we are working with the
homeowners association, and the code enforcement staff is also
working with them as well.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: One of the things I would be
concerned about is the cost of reshaping the slopes and the sides of
some of these retention ponds. It appears to me that many of the
problems might be the result of the shelves not being placed at the
proper elevation for the expected water levels and expected times of
the year. And we're implying here that they're going to have to assess
the existing slopes and elevations. Now, that implies there could be a
fairly substantial cost to reshape some of these storm retention areas.
MS. BURGESON: Well, we're not asking them to do any
reshaping. What we're asking them to do is analyze what's existing.
For instance, some slopes on the lake may be gentler than other
slopes. Some areas may be more appropriate. We're not asking them
to do any regrading. In fact, there's language in here that says the
planned area shall be -- I'm sorry, with the 8-1 requirement of the new
language that's in there shall not be required. So we're asking them to
use areas that are as flat as possible by looking at what's available and
seeing if there might be other areas that are more appropriate. But we
are not asking them to do any regrading. We're not asking this to be
any additional cost. We're really trying to help the homeowners
association allow the vegetation to survive better in the future, so not
only do we not have to continue with code enforcement issues, that it
won't cost them more in the future, so --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So is that what prompted you to bring this
forward?
MS. BURGESON: Code enforcement cases, yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The way this is all shaking out for
me is that maybe it's up to staff to come up with a list of proven ideas,
269
April 13, 2004
whether other communities have done this, and find a list of plants
that can be used and that we should be able to tell the people here's
what you can plant and these will live in two extremes. And I think
instead of having everybody run all over trying to figure out who's
going to help them out, I think if we want to take care of this matter,
then I think we have to provide them a list with what's available and
what will live in the two extreme conditions that I mentioned earlier.
MS. BURGESON: We do have a list started. Unfortunately there
aren't two extremes in Collier County. There are five or six or eight or
10 different scenarios, which is why we wanted to try to get some
information from those different projects. The cap rock is different in
Collier County, the fluctuations are very different, depending on what
the substrate is. And so getting -- and we could certainly give them
the information that we have, but that's not, in our opinion at least, a
very good -- not a very good approach to assure that they will have the
best survivability --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, then what you're telling me is
that it's up to the homeowners groups or gated communities, whatever
else, to go through a trial and error process to find out what's going to
live in their ponds.
MS. BURGESON: No, no, it's not what they have to plant. The
information that we would like to get from them is more detailed
information on what -- because after they've planted these plants for a
number of years, they have now some -- some record of elevations of
the fluctuations in those lakes. The problem is sometimes when
they're initially planted, they don't have that data. After a couple of
years and those plantings fail, they do have that data and we can take a
look at that. So there's a number of things that are available after the
initial plantings are --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But again, what you're telling me is
that the initial planting may not live, so then they have to go back and
replant and try something different. If that doesn't live, then they're
270
April 13, 2004
going to have to go back and find something, and maybe after the
third planting, then it works; is that what you're telling me?
MS. BURGESON: We're hope -- that's how it's been working
for the past, I don't know how many years. That's how it works
without this change. They would have to just replant plants in that
area, propose to us. We're trying to find ways to reduce the necessity
for them to have to plant more than one more time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm confused. I don't understand
why we have a change in language to address this, because --
MS. BURGESON: Because right now, if code enforcement goes
out and finds that the plants that were planted on the four-to-one slope
in this exact area are failing, what their option is is to make them
replant them right there in that four-to-one slope with landscape plants
that they're submitting to us without us being able to maybe say, first
of all, planting them next to the preserve would be a better way to
assure that they're going to survive because there may be different
slopes or planting them away from the homeowners association may
be better because we know that homeowners don't want the plants in
the backyard because they're blocking the views of the lakes. So
obviously we can -- I mean, we can -- without this language, code
enforcement can require them to replant them. It's up to the board as
to what their direction would be to that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just don't want to see it where it's
a catch 22 situation, and it ends up that code enforcement's out there
and they're on these people all the time and they got to keep replanting
and it cost more money. The end result is we've got to come to an
agreement here in regards to how they're going to plant the plants,
what kind of plants they're going to put there and can they live in that
particular environment, whether it's whatever soil's in the bottom of
this water retention pond. So I'm done.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we hear the speaker, please?
MS. FILSON: Well, actually, the speaker said he couldn't take it
271
April 13, 2004
anymore, so he left. He just--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I wish I had that option.
MS. FILSON: He just wanted me to mention that -- it was Brad
Cornell and he wanted me to mention that Collier Audubon supports
the staff's recommendation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, fine. Does anybody have a
motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll make a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we've beat this horse to
death. Is there anything really compelling we need to talk about now,
Marjorie?
MS. STUDENT: I just wanted to clarify, you're not voting on an
amendment tonight, this is just direction to bring it --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand.
MS. STUDENT: -- back as an amendment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'd just like to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll make a motion that we direct
staff to bring this back at a later date for amendment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
minutes ago.
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
Gosh, I could have said that 30
Well, we were waiting for you.
There's no second necessary.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So what-- there's no second
necessary. But what's the consensus? Everybody nod your heads,
staff bring it back? Okay, we're finished.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Mudd, question.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I work with your code
enforcement staff so I can really take a look at the issue and
understand it?
MR. MUDD: Absolutely, sir. Absolutely. I'll make the staff
272
April 13, 2004
available to you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Item #1 OM
RESOLUTION 2004-114 OPPOSING PROPOSED HOUSE BILL
1237 AND SENATE BILL 2322 RELATED TO UNJUSTIFIED
AND UNNECESSARY ELIMINATION OF ALL AUTHORITY OF
ALL FLORIDA LOCAL GOVERNMENTS STO CHARGE
APPLICATION FEES, TRANSFER FEES, SITING FEES,
RENEWAL FEES AND CLAIMS FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES
AGAINST DEALERS OF COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES,
INCI.I IDING CABI.E TEIiEVISION COMPANIES- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, we move on to 10(M).
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am, 10(M). It's adopt a resolution
opposing proposed House Bill 1237 and Senate Bill 2322 related to
unjustified and unnecessary elimination of all authority of all Florida
local governments, STO charge application fees, transfer fees, siting
fees, renewal fees, and claims for reimbursement of local government
out-of-pocket expenses against dealers of communication services,
including cable television companies. And Mr. Bleu Wallace will
present.
MR. WALLACE: For the record, Bleu Wallace, community
development operations.
Staff learned of this from the Florida Association of Counties.
And what this does, we -- give you an example, we collected $10,000
from Strategic Technologies that has applied for a cable franchise to
serve Heritage Bay. We used that $10,000 for advertising of public
hearing and hiring a consultant to draft the agreement. This legislation
is going to take that away so that we'll have to dig into our coffers to
273
April 13, 2004
pay for the public hearing notices and anything else that we have to
do.
It's a bad bill. And it's retroactive all the way back to when the
communication services tax went into effect back in 2001. If that's the
case, we may have to pay $30,000 back, 10,000 to Time Warner,
10,000 to Comcast and to STI for cable actions we've already
processed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who is the sponsor of this bill?
MR. WALLACE: I don't have his name, sir. I don't have it off
the top of my head.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I hope it's a democrat.
MR. WALLACE: There's a Senate bill and a House bill, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, this is bad news. I make a
motion that we approve it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I second that motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Approve the opposition to the bill.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
Do we have any further comments?
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
Aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
That's a 3-0.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we get any assistance from
anybody else, like the Association of Counties or anybody like that?
They're opposing it, I believe.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, they are.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. WALLACE: Yes, sir, I will deliver a copy of our resolution
274
April 13, 2004
to all of our local legislative delegation and the Florida Association of
Counties.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think it would be a real good idea
to find out who the sponsors are and post it on our television station,
let all the listeners know that these people are trying to take money out
of Collier County. That would be a real good idea. Maybe they'd get
some letters from some irate taxpayers.
Item #11
PI IBIJIC COMMENTS ON GENERAI~ TOPICS
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, we move on to 11 (A), Mr. Bill
Klohn. Public -- this is under public comment.
MS. FILSON: And I have three additional speakers as well.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Three additional speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: On public comments? Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where's your littoral plantings?
MR. KLOHN: Good evening. My name is Bill Klohn, I'm
president of MDG Capital Corporation. Our company is very
involved in work force housing here in the county, as you know.
Tonight's subject is Cypress Glen Village on Pine Ridge Road, which
is adjacent to the Community School and across from Kensington
Country Club.
I'll start by saying even good things have their challenges, and
that's why we're here tonight, to talk about a small challenge we have.
One fun item before I get into my request this evening. When
you approved this rezone to do this work force housing project a year
and a half or so ago, we all wondered how much of the -- how many
of the units would really be sold to the work force. I'm pleased to
announce that as of yesterday we're completely 100 percent sold out
275
April 13, 2004
on all 120 units. I did a tally for informational purposes. About 78 of
the homes were sold to Collier County's work force, about 20 of those
homes were sold to investors who are renting to the work force, and
the balance, 20 units, went to seasonal vacationers. So we're real
pleased with the --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What was the price range?
MR. KLOHN: 150 to $200,000.
The problem that we have -- I think you received a copy of a
memorandum with regard to the problem. We had to -- and the two
buildings we'll be talking about are right down in this area near the
entrance. The neighbor
to the problem is Pine Ridge Road. So that's not an issue whatsoever.
The problem-- there are two six-unit buildings, and the separation
between the buildings was to be 15 feet. And there was a utility
located down in this area. If you could point, George, my finger's not
showing up on the chart. There was a utility in the comer of the
building, and as we cantered the building, we maintained the 15 feet
on one comer, but the other comer went short of the 15 feet, so we're
at 13 feet, nine inches instead of 15 feet.
So while we recognize that we have to go forward with the
full-blown variance process, I've met with staff, including Susan
Murray, Joe Schmitt and Ed Perico. They've been very helpful to
suggest my alternatives. The alternative that we have chosen is to ask
you today to allow us to move forward with construction and
recommence the construction that is stopped on these two buildings so
that we may deliver these units to the work force.
I understand that we're taking our risks, that the variance may not
be approved, but it's a risk that we think is very calculated, given the
fact that it's just a comer of the building that is really out of whack by
nine inches. Staff has six inches of leeway to do a staff approval, so
we're talking about nine inches of the comer of the building. So we're
prepared to take that risk.
276
April 13, 2004
I request that you grant the authorization to staff to allow us to
recommence construction. We will proceed with the variance process.
Actually, I believe we've already had the preap meeting?
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator,
Community Development Environmental Services.
This is a minor issue. In fact, it involves no one except the
builder. What we're asking for tonight is for your approval to issue a
conditional building permit. We've already lifted the red tag on one
side, the other side has been red-tagged. With your approval, we'll lift
that red tag, we'll issue a conditional building permit, and the applicant
assumes all risk and responsibility. They will come back. They've
already had a preapplication meeting. They'll be back before you
within 180 days for a request for a variance for this project.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have some questions. Either the
petitioner or Joe can answer this.
I look at this and I see that -- are we talking that whole building
that is off kilter, or are we just talking about the comer?
MR. KIJOHN: We're just talking about -- you look at the one
dimension, that says 15 feet. We've got 15 feet here. And when we
cantered the building, it was reduced to 13 feet, nine inches. So the
problem is right in this area.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we're not talking about -- how
about the setback from Tamarana Drive there?
MR. KIJOHN: All of the other setbacks are in check. As a
matter of fact, the error -- for a little bit of history, the error was not
made in the field with the surveyor, it was generally the CAD
technician. The CAD drawing was incorrect and the surveyor
surveyed what was on the CAD drawing, so we had a technical
problem with CAD. But the only problem was right in this area.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, just -- the distance between
the building No. 6 and whatever this other building is to the right; is
277
April 13, 2004
that correct?
MR. KIJOHN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I thought maybe this was
something major, like we were -- had a whole building that was offset
by six or eight inches from the road or nine inches from the road in
that case.
MR. KLOHN: No, we're just talking about the comer of the
building.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was going to say, if Mr.
Schmitt has no problems with this, I have no problems.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have any speakers on this subject?
MS. FILSON: Yes, I have three additional speakers, but not on
his issue, they're all public comments.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What do you need, a vote, a
motion or just a nod of the head or what?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if you--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This doesn't have anything to do
with setbacks or side yard setbacks with anybody else, it's all -- it's
just a building that's on this piece of property; is that correct?
MR. SCHMITT: This has no other impact on any other property
owners. It's strictly the builder. It's insignificant. It's just over the
amount that can be approved administratively. This will be back
before you for a request for a variance. Probably in all likelihood it
will be on the summary agenda.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Need a motion?
MR. SCHMITT: So I just need a motion that you would allow --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion --
MR. SCHMITT: -- us to issue a conditional building permit.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- we that we allow you to go
ahead with the conditional building permit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll second that motion.
278
April 13, 2004
And Mr. Klohn has recognized that it's an at risk process.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. That's included in my
motion.
MR. SCHMITT: He'll have a statement attached to his file as
such.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, we have a motion on the floor.
Restate your motion, would you?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I knew you were going to do
that me. Only because it's your birthday.
No, my motion is is that we go ahead and we allow him to
proceed until he works forward toward his variance and that he's at his
own risk.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, we have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coletta and a second by Commissioner Henning. Any
further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
Opposed, like sign.
And that's a 5-0. Thank you.
MR. KLOHN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Kenneth Thompson.
MR. THOMPSON: Yeah, I want you to call Mr. Schmitt back
right there. Right -- don't let him get away with it. No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We can't let you get away.
MR. THOMPSON: No, sir. Because I had code enforcement
279
April 13, 2004
make me do the same thing. If it requires a 15, seven and a half feet
here, seven and a half feet, calls for 15 feet, make him tear it down.
They did me.
I had been rode like a red horse ever since I moved from
Shadowlawn to Becca Avenue. I have been made to do this. I got
about 105 permits for 32 feet. And eventually you found out there
wasn't nothing wrong to start with. So make him tear it down. That's
being honest to me and it's being honest -- right here, here's something
right here.
As a matter of fact, the guy down the road, right here, the guy
down the road is all wrong. He built two buildings on the wrong
property. Right -- it's a 15-foot variance between everybody. Seven
and a half, and seven-and-a-half. Right here is one. It's at 2679 Becca
Avenue. It's got to come down. Because he went and built it just like
that guy did, right here. Right here.
I had the same problem. You wouldn't let me budge. I went and
I asked. I have never been rode so hard in my life with my wife's
beauty parlor, and you finally found that -- as a matter of fact, you
owe me some money, too. You owe me some money.
I don't like to get this way with people, but Joe Schmitt, you're
wrong. I got there and tried to talk to you and you don't even talk to
me, man.
But I'm going to tell you right now, I come here for your help, I
got this place right here, 2854 Becca Avenue, it's a stupid boat
boathouse and it's a fictitious permit that code enforcement let him
have. They say that this boathouse was built in 1965. The people
wasn't even here in 1965. How can you build something in '65 when
you didn't get here till '72?
And right here, you should see having sex. I have one hell of a
nightmare -- excuse me. I live one bad nightmare from last Friday
afternoon. They're holding women like this, having sex from behind
right there in broad daylight. They're on the sidewalk having sex. I
280
April 13, 2004
have never in my life -- SECURITY: Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson, I'm going to have
to ask you to conduct yourself accordingly. MR. THOMPSON: Yes, sir.
I'm sorry, but when you do me this way and then you going to let
these people get away with it, I don't think that's fair.
But have I had the sheriff department -- here they standing on the
sidewalk drinking beer and liquor and blowing and kissing and
blowing it back and forth in one another's mouth. I got it right here.
And right here is nothing but armed robbery. This is what he's got in
these places. Armed robbery, kidnapping, assault with deadly
weapon. Here's more, there's a lot more of it to go. And this is what
I'm having to live with.
And the guy next to me is at 2815 working on boats right on up
to 2:00, 3:00 in the morning. And he took a Honda Civic deliberately
and drove it in the ditch and stood it up on the end and had Checker
Cab to come out and try to pull it down. They finally got it down,
they drug it out on the road. And you should hear this guy carry on. I
mean, he is really something else. He's running a boat yard there.
And all I did was come to ask you for help. But now when I hear
him do something like this -- and you people know it's wrong. If the
code calls for seven and a half feet, you give seven and a half, I give
seven and a half. It's a 15-foot variance, and Mr. Schmitt knows that.
He knows it, I know it. Because I have really been rode by code
enforcement. And rode and rode and rode. I got two permits for pole
lights, two permits for that pole light. You name it, I got it.
And I don't believe I have ever in my life -- I try not to hurt Mrs.
Arnold. I try not to do that. But Mrs. Arnold is a very understanding
lady. If I want to do something or I'm going to build something, I will
go and ask her, I'll sit down and I'll talk with her and she'll tell me, no,
you need a permit. So I waited and I waited, one day she told me it's
going to cost you 60 -- it's going to cost $65 -- $63 for the lumber, and
281
April 13, 2004
I had the guy that was going to give me his free time for some sod we
did a long time ago from Naples Sod. Back in those days, I help you
and you help me.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
MR. THOMPSON: And I'm telling you, don't let him get away
with it. I need you to help me with this boathouse right here because
this is the most profanic (sic) place I've ever seen in my life. It's too
many people, ma'am, coming all night long, day in -- and I showed it
to you -- day in and day out all night long. I can't get it stopped.
I went north and got in trouble at my -- I went to a pain clinic up
there and they had me flew back by Delta Airline. They were good
enough to give me the two tickets.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. Thompson, we have to --
MR. THOMPSON: I know it, ma'am and I appreciate it. But
right is right and wrong is wrong.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, sir.
MR. THOMPSON: All day long.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, maybe we can help you through
code enforcement or the sheriffs office or something. Next speaker, please?
MS. FILSON: Bob Krasowski.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Did you say there was another speaker
yet?
MS. FILSON: Well, Mr. Hermanson, but he was with Bill
Klohn.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Hi, how are you doing, Commissioners?
Bob Krasowski again.
I wanted to take advantage of this opportunity under general
comments to give you an update of what Zero Waste Collier County
group has been doing on behalf of the community and you, and along
with the county solid waste department and the school board, as a
282
April 13, 2004
matter of fact.
But first I'd like to state that the reason, the main reason that I
and the others that I'm involved with have taken an interest in efficient
management of discarded resource materials is that at one time, in
1985 or so, there was an effort to build an incinerator here, and we
learned in studying and analyzing it and coming to know what that
meant that this was actually was a health threat and it was an
inefficient use of resources. And so because we believed the
information that we were provided at that time, this issue took on a
special importance, more so than regular business and competition for
monies and activities and success. But this had a bottom line base, it
was just bad policy to do this, because it threatened the health of
people and has impacts on kids and there's all sorts of numerous
studies available on what type of health problems these things cause.
So this is what was at our beginning. So recently -- in '85 that
incinerator thing never happened. It was found -- the flaws in the
whole process were exposed and it didn't come about. And we started,
the county did, on a few recycling, composting and minimal type of
operations.
But now to date, in 2000, since you three main people were
elected, we've given attention to this issue once again, and we have
over the past couple of years concentrated on the recycling effort in
the school system. And by studying the overall waste management's
strategy for the schools' discards, we've been able to indicate a $9,000
a month savings by rearranging how things are done at the school, and
we'll be presenting at the budget workshop. We've been participating
in a committee that we asked for at the school board and they put one
together. We asked to be sure that the county representative, Denise
Kirk, would be on that committee. As things worked out, as the
people were -- but the beginning premise of that we brought to that
committee was that we could save $9,000 a month, which we indicate.
We have proven through model programs in the schools that we've
283
April 13, 2004
diverted 20 percent of the waste stream that was going to the landfill
into recycling at one school. It's the model for everything else. So
we've -- and this is first blush, the first initial effort. And we know we
could do a lot more. So that's what we have been doing and trying to
work it into the county's operation.
We've been participating over time on the non-residential
recycling ordinance with the chamber of commerce and with the
county. And for years, starting in January, 2001, we've been
interacting with Mr. Mudd when he was public utilities director and
have gone down the line with Mr. Wides and Mr. DeLony and trying
to interact and get our point across. And then we had our zero waste
workshop design charette, which brought forward a lot of issues.
I'm a bit concerned in that regard that at the zero waste workshop
design charette, the issue of a pilot program for recycling was
discussed, and what you're doing now in Mr. Halas' district, which we
didn't have any part of, with the experimentation with waste
management where you're increasing frequency of pick-up of
recyclables to increase that, actually, that works best for waste
management, because they get paid more for running their trucks more
frequently.
The thing that was identified in the workshop design charette was
that you give a larger container for recyclables -- I don't know if that's
one of the variables in your study -- but you give a larger container for
recyclables, the frequency doesn't have to be as often and you save
money in that regard. And then you have smaller waste -- and that has
to be a variable in there.
I hope as time goes on, this comes in front of you, we get to --
we'll address that, sure. You know, we'll be here one way or the other.
And then I also wanted to update you on the fact that both
Brightstar Environmental, this is the group where you went to
Australia to look at their facility, which you were, I think, under the
impression that this was a commercially operating test plant or
284
April 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
SO--
beginning pilot plant, where actually it was an experimental plant,
never had operated for more than like three days in a row before they
shut it down and had to make adjustments and stuff. Well, they never
got that thing running. Never.
And the problem -- the best they ever got was where they had
these huge arsenic emission problems -- and I hope you give me a
minute or so and I'll wrap it up. I'd just like to make this point. This
arsenic emission problem. But the Energy Development, Limited, as
we had pointed out before at one of the meetings here, pulled out their
financial aid and now they tried to sell the thing for a year. Well, the
year's passed and Brightstar is just now totally -- at least that facility is
shut down. So we were critical of that, you know, spending time and
effort and energy, Malcolm Pimie, paying them over a million and a
half dollars over the past three years. You just gave them another
$163,000 for work that you could get done for a lot less. You know,
you should involve us in this discussion.
And then also Thermal Select in Europe, the other, second -- or
actually it was listed first, their pyrolysis projects have fallen away.
So we've spent all this time evaluating all these things and all this
money, and where are we today? We're still filling up the landfill
with recyclables.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: I hope we can start taking action on some
of these things pretty soon --
I see Mr. DeLony taking notes,
MR. KRASOWSKI: Oh, good. Okay. Well, nice to speak with
you, okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
And let's see, do we have anything from the county attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: No, it's a pleasure sharing your birthday with us
and have a nice evening as well.
285
April 13, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I thought I'd drop in today and spend a
day with good friends.
Let's see, do we have any -- anything from Jim Mudd?
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAIJ COMMI INICATIONS
MR. MUDD: Yes, Commissioner, I do. First of all, this is a sad
note, but I thought we -- because sometimes you don't pick it up in the
paper and the person doesn't get the attention that he or she deserves.
But on 1 April, 2004, Mr. Alton C. Hancock, fondly known as A.C.
Hancock, of Chokoloskee, died. He was born on Sandfly Pass, then
part of lower Lee County, on April 30th, 1922. In 1923, the lower
part of Lee County was named for Barron Collier and became known
as Collier County. He served as a Collier County Commissioner from
1960 to 1972. And I just wanted to make sure that you all know that
he has passed away. And Collier County is indeed grateful for his
service to the taxpayers of this county and to the nation, because he
was also a vet from World War II, and his passing takes us with some
grief and some sorrow. I just wanted to make sure you knew.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, that was very nice.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: On the next note, I'd like to announce that Collier
County Government Days is going to be this Friday, April 16th,
running through Saturday, April 17th. On Friday the hours at
Coastland Mall are going to be from 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., and on
Saturday they're going to be from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. And again,
like we do on an annual basis, staff looks forward to this opportunity
to introduce themselves and talk about the services that Collier County
government provides to all the taxpayers that take the time to come on
by. And it's a great opportunity for us to interface and to let the public
286
April 13, 2004
know what the programs are in Collier County government. And it's
not only just our government, but you have police departments, the
sheriff's office, you have all of those folks, the elections office, that
everybody shows up, to try to provide that service. And I think it's an
educational opportunity for those folks that are just out there trying to
spend money to come on by and maybe not spend some money and
learn about something besides how much an item costs. That's all I have, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. From the commissioners.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Again, happy birthday, and I'm
looking forward to us and I being at the Coastland Mall on Friday for
Government Days.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great. Thank you. I'm sure that they'll be
happy that you're there. I'm going to join you on Friday.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Again, happy birthday. I just hope
I live so long.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You better. He's following me close
behind. Nipping at my heels.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
Other than that, I have nothing to
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It was an exciting day in
government here in Collier County and also I know it was an exciting
day for you today, being your birthday. And we wish you many,
many more.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I think we got a lot
accomplished today. And I think that we're leading this county in the
right direction.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
287
April 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
me.
Once again, happy birthday,
Thank you. You guys are all so nice to
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My printed message is not
going to appear on the screen, but I think I can recall it by memory.
On the 19th, which is Tuesday, is that correct, Mr. Mudd? But in
any case, what it is is we're holding a community meeting down at the
Corkscrew Middle School dealing with several issues of importance to
the Waterway, Orangetree, Valencia community, such as the
Orangetree utility, talk about the rate increases that may happen, we're
going to talk about some of the directions the county's going with their
utility. We're going to also be discussing the roads in the area. About
three or four issues that are very important to the residents there. And
I thought it was important that we call this meeting so that they can be
updated where we are.
Do we have all the answers at this point in time? No. But we
need to share the information that we do have so that we can all move
forward together.
Also on the 29th at 7:30, also at Corkscrew Middle School, there
will be a meeting of the -- it's going to be hosted by the -- boy, it's
starting to wash out here -- Waterways property owners association.
John J. Sullivan is the one that's putting the meeting together and
they're inviting the members from the school board to come and talk
about the new high school that's going in and such issues as the bus
garage and its possible location. It's very important that anyone that
attends that school and lives in that neighborhood or lives near that
neighborhood and has an interest in the actual layout of the school
look on the speakers so they can be fully informed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He does talk more than anybody
else.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The last message I got is to
288
April 13, 2004
Norm Feder who did an admirable job on handling the overpass issue.
I have never seen one man take on so much as far as the public goes
for so many meetings and still come back with a smile every time.
And I tell you, I really admire the guy, he did a tremendous job, and I
thank him very much for moving this issue forward. I know it wasn't
all without some pain. And believe me, he's been there out in the front
while we just sat here very quietly and let all the facts roll by.
Thanks, Norm. Thank your staff for me. We appreciate you very
much.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Coyle, how much
time did Commissioner Coletta speak today?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a moment. I've got him logged
in at about 57 minutes. But you were a close second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I think he was way up there first.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I was third. And
Commissioner Henning was fourth. And our Chairperson didn't really
prolong the meetings much at all.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: How do you like that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If we could put a three-minute time
limit on Commissioner Coletta, we could cut these things in half.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And with that, I'm going to ask my
husband Paul to make the reservations, honey, I'm coming on home.
Meeting is adjourned.
*****Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner
Halas and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16Al
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "BRADFORD LAKES"
AR 40091, APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
289
April 13, 2004
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SF, CI ;RITY - W/STIPI IIJATIONS
Item #16A2
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "MUSTANG ISLAND II",
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM OF CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY-
W/STIP111JA TI ON S.
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 2004-96: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE), DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "NAPLES LAKES
COUNTRY CLUB". THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED, THE
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
MAINTAINED FlY COIJ,IFJR COl JNTY
Item #16A4
ACCEPT ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE WATER AND
SEWER FACILITIES EASEMENTS FOR FIDDLER'S CREEK,
I,AKF. 88.
Item #16A5
SET A PUBLIC HEARING DATE ON MAY 11, 2004 FOR
CONSIDERATION OF THE ABANDONMENT OF THE
290
April 13, 2004
DEVELOPMENT ORDER AS SPECIFIED IN PETITION
DRIABN-03-AR-4987, THE TWELVE LAKES DEVELOPMENT
OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON
THE NORTH SIDE OF DAVIS BOULEVARD (SR-84) AND THE
SOUTH SIDE OF RADIO ROAD (CR-856) IN SECTION 4,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FIJORIDA.
Item #16A6
RESOLUTION 2004-97: ESTABLISHING A FEE SCHEDULE OF
DEVELOPMENT RELATED REVIEW AND PROCESSING FEES
INCLUDING: PROVIDING FOR NEW AND REVISED
BUILDING PERMIT, INSPECTION, AND LAND USE PETITION
FEES AS PROVIDED FOR IN DIVISION 1.10 OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; SUPERSEDING
RESOLUTION 2004-17, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE- AMENDS RESOI,I JTION 2004-17
Item #16A7- Moved to Item # 10L
Item #16A8
ACCEPT ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT FOR WATER AND
SEWER FACILITIES EASEMENTS FOR FIDDLER'S CREEK,
PHASE 3; IJNIT 2 AKA SANDPIPER DRIVE.
Item #16A9
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "INDEPENDENCE PHASE
ONE", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
291
April 13, 2004
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECI JRITY - W/STIPI JI.ATIONS.
Item #16Al0
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "FIDDLER'S CREEK
PHASE FOUR, UNIT ONE", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD
FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECI IRITY -W/STIPI JIJATIONS.
Item #16Al 1
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
FIRST BAPTIST CHIJRCH; PHASE 1-A & 1-B
Item #16B 1
AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$507,543.69 TO JOHN CARLO, INC. FOR INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS ON GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AT
SIJNSHINF, lqOIIIJEVARD. (BID # 04-3619)
Item #16B2
AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1,860,563.00 TO DOUGLAS N. HIGG1NS, 1NC. AND
ALLOCATE $186,000.00 (10% OF THE CONSTRUCTION COST)
FOR CONTINGENCY PURPOSES TO CONSTRUCT THE
PROPOSED 13TM STREET SW ROAD PROJECT, GOLDEN GATE
BOULEVARD TO 16TM AVENUE SW. (PROJECT NO. 69068, BID
NO_ 04-3625)
292
April 13, 2004
Item #16B3
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO SHIFT FUNDS BETWEEN
BUDGETED PROJECTS FOR A MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENT TO
THE STORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
AS DETAIl,ED IN THE EXECI ~TIVE SIIMMARY.
Item #16B4
ACCEPT A DONATION OF 10-45 GALLON LIVE OAK TREES
FROM THE BONITA BAY GROUP FOR LANDSCAPING ON
IJIVINGSTON ROAD.
Item # 16B5
AGREEMENT WITH OAKES ESTATES ADVISORY BOARD
WHICH GIVES DONATED PLANTS TO THIS HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION FOR USE AS BUFFERING AND
lqEAI JTIFICATION AIJONG VANDERFIII,T FIF, ACH ROAD.
Item #16B6
AWARD WORK ORDER NO. UC-004 TO KYLE
CONSTRUCTION INC., FOR THE IMMOKALEE FIFTH STREET
DITCH PROJECT (PROJECT # 51725) IN THE AMOUNT OF
$371,856.59 AND ACCEPT A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
LICENSE TO ALLOW FOR PROPER ACCESS TO COMPLETE
THE FIRST SECTION OF THIS STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT
Item #16B7
293
April 13, 2004
AWARD BID #04-3622, TO HANNULA LANDSCAPING, INC. IN
THE AMOUNT OF $489,897.76, TO ACCOMPLISH MEDIAN
LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS TO "RATTLESNAKE
HAMMOCK ROAD (CR 864) FROM US 41 TAMIAMI TRAIL
EAST TO POIJ~Y AVENI JF,.
Item #16B8
RESOLUTION 2004-98: APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING A
HIGHWAY LANDSCAPING INSTALLATION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) FOR THE NEW
1-75/GOI~DEN GATE PARKWAY INTERCHANGE
Item #16B9
RESOLUTION 2004-99: APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING A
HIGHWAY LANDSCAPING INSTALLATION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) FOR
LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENTS FOR A
PORTION OF THE 1-75/PINE RIDGE ROAD INTFJRCHANGF,.
Item #16B10
RESOLUTION 2004-100: APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING A
HIGHWAY LANDSCAPING INSTALLATION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) FOR
LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE
UNPAVED AREAS WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF US 41
294
April 13, 2004
EAST FROM RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD TO ST.
ANDREWS BOI IIJEVARD.
Item #16B 11
AWARD BID #04-3627 TO HANNULA LANDSCAPING, INC., IN
THE AMOUNT OF $510,605.66 FOR THE AIRPORT PULLING
ROAD NORTH MEDIAN LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. (FROM COUGAR- VANDERBILT
BEACH ROAD AND A PORTION OF ORANGE FIIJOSSOM~
Item #16B12
AWARD BID #04-3623 TO HANNULA LANDSCAPING, INC., IN
THE AMOUNT OF $621,509.35 FOR THE PINE RIDGE ROAD
(CR896) MEDIAN LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENT
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. (FROM AIRPORT-PULLING TO
NAPA BI,VD)
Item # 16C 1
AMEND WORK ORDER CAR-FT-04-01 TO CAROLLO
ENGINEERS IN THE AMOUNT OF $539,113 AND APPROVE A
BUDGET AMENDMENT-TO IMPROVE THE RELIABILITY
AND OPERABILITY OF THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL
WATER TREATMENT PLANT BY UPGRADING THE PLANT'S
INSTRUMENTATION, CONTROLS, AND SUPERVISORY
CONTROIJ AND DATA ACOIJISITION (SCADAI SYSTEMS.
Item # 16C2
APPROVE FUNDING RELATED TO UPGRADING THE FLOW
295
April 13, 2004
METERING SYSTEM AT THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL
WATER TREATMENT PLANT, PROJECT 71021, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $300,000.00- (TO MAINTAIN REGULATORY
COMPI.IANCF. AND F. NHANCF. OPERATIONS)
Item #16C3
CHANGE ORDER 8 (FINAL) TO THE DESIGN BUILD
CONTRACT WITH METCALF & EDDY, INC., FOR
ADDITIONAL REVERSE OSMOSIS RAW WATER SUPPLY
WELLS AND IN-PLANT MODIFICATIONS FOR THE NORTH
COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT,
PROJECTS 70075 AND 70094. IN THE DEDUCT AMOUNT OF
$40,983.00. (TO RECONCILE ACTUAL QUANTITIES WITH
CONTRACT Ol IANTITIF. S~
Item #16C4
BUDGET AMENDMENT AND AN ENGINEERING SERVICES
WORK ORDER UNDER CONTRACT #00-3119. FIXED-TERM
PROFESSIONAL UTILITY ENGINEERING SERVICES, WITH
MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC., (IN THE AMOUNT OF $163,200.00)
TO CONDUCT A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR DESIGN OF A
MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY, PROJECT 59002, (FOR
FIJTIIRE DF. SIGN AND CONSTRI ICTION)
Item #16C5
WORK ORDER UNDER CONTRACT #01-3271, FIXED TERM
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR COASTAL
ZONE MANAGEMENT, WITH HUMISTON & MOORE
ENGINEERS, INC FOR THE ANNUAL MONITORING OF
296
April 13, 2004
WIGGINS PASS, PROJECT 90001, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$26,000.00, TO PERFORM SURVEYS AND TO PROVIDE AN
F, NG1NF, ERING REPORT AS RF. OI IIRFD BY PERMIT.
Item #16C6
AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH WATER RESOURCE SOLUTIONS, PROJECT 74030, TO
ALLOW AN INCREASE TO THE RATES LISTED IN CONTRACT
RFP 99-2926, FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO
DRILLING THE RECLAIMED WATER AQUIFER STORAGE
AND RF. COVFiRY (ASR~ WFJ.IJ FOR THIS PROJECT.
Item # 16C7
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR EMERGENCY WORK ORDER
NUMBER 8 TO YOUNGQUIST BROTHERS, INC., IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1,064,00.00 AND WORK ORDER NUMBER CDM-
FT-04-10 TO CAMP DRESSER AND MCKEE (CDM) IN THE
AMOUNT OF $86,350.00 TO FUND AND COMPLETE THE
REPAIR OF DEEP INJECTION WELL 1 AT THE NORTH
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT (PROJECT NUMBER
71041)
Item #16C8
TRANSFER MATCHING FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$48,700.00 FROM WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FUND (114)
TO MISCELLANEOUS GRANTS FUND (116) AND ALSO TO
RECOGNIZE REVENUE FOR THE GOLDEN GATE
GROUNDWATER BASELINE MONITORING PROGRAM
CONTRACT C-15055 WITH THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
297
April 13, 2004
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT BIG CYPRESS BASIN FOR
MISCELLANEOUS GRANTS FUND (116) IN THE AMOUNT OF
$48,700.00.
Item #16C9
AWARD BID #04-3577 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
INDUSTRIES, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $60,645.00, TO
COLLECT AND ANALYZE CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL
PARAMETERS IN GROUNDWATER FOR THE GOLDEN GATE
GROI JNDWATER BASF, IJINFJ MONITORING PROGRAM.
Item #16C10
WORK ORDER WITH HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS,
INC., IN AN AMOUNT UP TO $87,000.00, UNDER CONTRACT
#01-3271, FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
SERVICES FOR COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS,
FOR THE ANNUAL MONITORING OF HIDEAWAY BEACH
AND T-GROINS 2004. (PROJECT 90540 - TO PERFORM
SURVEYS AND PROVIDE AN ENGINEERING REPORT)
W/BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER MISALLOCATED
FUNDS FROM THE HIDEAWAY BEACH MONITORING 2003
PROJECT INTO THE HIDEAWAY BEACH MONITORING 2004
PROJECT.
Item #16C 11
FINALIZE WORK ORDER, UNDER CONTRACT #01-3271,
FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS, WITH COASTAL
PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. (CP&E), (PROJECT 90536)
298
April 13, 2004
FOR ANNUAL MONITORING OF THE COUNTY AND NAPLES
BEACHES MAJOR RENOURISHMENT. (NOT TO EXCEED
$7s,oo.oo)
Item # 16D 1
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO NEGOTIATE THE PURCHASE OF
PROPERTIES UTILIZING REAL ESTATE INCENTIVES TO
ACQUIRE LAND WHILE IT IS STILL AVAILABLE FOR THE
Pl IRPOSES OF RECREATIONAIJ BEACH AND BOAT ACCESS.
Item #16D2
SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM GRANT TO PROVIDE
FREE NUTRITIOUS MEALS DURING THE SUMMER TO
COLLIER COUNTY CHILDREN LIVING IN DISADVANTAGED
NEIGHBORHOODS.
Item # 16D3
DIRECT STAFF NOT TO PURSUE A FEASIBILITY STUDY OF
THE WIGGINS PASS MARINA PROPERTY TO DEVELOP
BEACH AND BOAT ACCESS FAClIJlTlES.
Item # 16E 1
DECLARATION OF A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR THE
EXPENDITURE OF UP TO $500.00 TOWARD CO-SPONSORSHIP
OF THE NAPLES TOWN HALL MEETING ON HEALTHCARE
SOLUTIONS TITLED, "SOLVING THE HEALTH CARE CRISIS
IN COLLIER COUNTY, MAKING HEALTH BENEFITS MORE
AFFORDABLE--MYTHS AND REALITIES", TO BE HELD
299
April 13, 2004
TI IESDAY: APRIIJ 213: 2004.
Item # 16E2
UPDATED COLLIER COUNTY GROUP HEALTH AND
FLEXIBLE REIMBURSEMENT INSURANCE PLAN
DOCUMENT, REFLECTING MINOR ADMINISTRATIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS, CHANGES TO GENERAL INFORMATION
AND CHANGES IN PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFITS,
EFFF, CTIVF, JANI ~ARY 17 2004.
Item # 16E3
REPORT AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS
AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD APPROVED
CONTRACTS. TO ENABLE THE BOARD TO OVERSEE THE
EXECUTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE ORDERS AND
CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS, AND PROMOTE
ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE USE OF STAFF AUTHORITY. (AS
DF, TAII,FD 1N THE FXF, CI ITIVF, SI JMMARY)
Item #16E4
REPORT CONCERNING THE SALE AND TRANSFER OF ITEMS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE COUNTY SURPLUS AUCTION OF
MARCH 13, 2004. (NET REVENUE $315,803.00) AS DETAILED
IN THE F, XECI JTIVF, SI IMMARY
Item # 16E5
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER FUNDS FROM THE
GIS CAPITAL PROJECT #500141 TO THE INSTALLATION OF
300
April 13, 2004
CONDUIT CAPITAL PROJECT #500281 FOR THE PURPOSE OF
INSTALLING CONDUIT AND FIBER OPTIC LINES FOR
NETWORK CONNECTIVITY AND REDI INDANCY.
Item # 16F 1
AWARD BID #04-3632, FOR HORTICULTURE DEBRIS
HAULING DISPOSAL IN PELICAN BAY, TO WHERRY TRUCK
I~INF, S; 1NC. (IN THE AMOI INT OF $47;800.00)
Item #16F2
PAYMENT OF INVOICE NUMBER 16122, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$3,264.86, TO KELLEY SWOFFORD & ROY, INC. (KSR) FOR
PUBLIC RELATIONS EXPENSES FOR SEPTEMBER 2001. (FOR
SERVICES RECEIVED WHILE TOURISM WAS UNDER
CONTRACT WITH THE TOURISM ALLIANCE OF COLLIER
COUNTY AND TO FIND THAT THOSE SERVICES SERVED A
PUBLIC PURPOSE BY PROMOTING TOURISM IN COLLIER
COl INTY.
Item #16F3
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY "A" GRANT
APPLICATIONS FROM THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPT., PELICAN BAY
SERVICES DISTRICT AND THE TOURISM DEPARTMENT FOR
BEACH RENOURISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2005. (AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)
Item # 16F4
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR TWO TOURIST DEVELOPMENT
301
April 13, 2004
CATEGORY "A" GRANT APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE
PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT. (FOR REPAIRS TO
BEACH CLEANING EQUIPMENT AND FOR TIPPING FEES
THAT WERE NOT PREVIOI JSIJY BI JDGETED FOR FY 04)
Item # 16F5
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY "A" GRANT
APPLICATIONS FOR THE RENOURISHMENT OF
VANDERBILT, PELICAN BAY, PARK SHORE AND NAPLES
BF, ACHES
Item #16F6
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR TWO TOURIST DEVELOPMENT
CATEGORY "A" GRANT APPLICATIONS FROM THE CITY OF
NAPLES AND A STANDARD TOURISM AGREEMENT FOR
BEACH CLEANING FOR FISCAL YEARS 2004 AND 2005. (FOR
FUNDS TO PURCHASE EQUIPMENT, SALARY AND BENEFITS
TO REMOVE ALGAE ACCUMULATIONS TO ENSURE THE
PUBLIC BEACH AREAS REMAIN RELATIVELY USEFUL FOR
RESIDENTS AND VISITORS DESIRING TO UTILIZE THEM.)
Item #16F7
AWARD BID #04-3613 FOR PELICAN BAY-GULF PARK AND
OAKMONT IRRIGATION INSTALLATION TO COLLIER
IRRIGATION INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $197,027.50. (AS
DF, TAll,ED IN THE EXECI JTIVE SI IMMARY~
Item #16F8
APPLICATION FOR VOLUNTEER FIRE ASSISTANCE
MATCHING (50/50) GRANT, OFFERED BY THE FLORIDA
302
April 13, 2004
DIVISION OF FORESTRY, BY THE ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE AND
RESCUE DISTRICT FOR THE PURCHASE OF WILD LAND
FIREFIGHT1NG EQUIPMENT TO IMPROVE FIREFIGHTER
SAFETY AND FIREFIGHT1NG CAPABIIJITIES
Item #16F9
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL
DISTRICTS APPLICATION FOR A MATCH1NG (50/50) GRANT
OFFERED BY THE FLORIDA DIVISION OF FORESTRY FOR
THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASING NOZZLES AND CLASS A
FOAM. THIS EQUIPMENT IS PRIMARILY USED FOR
CONTROLLING BRUSH FIRES AND DURING PRESCRIBED
BURNS TO CONTAIN FIRES FOR THE PROTECTION OF BOTH
LIFE AND PROPERTY. THIS TYPE OF EQUIPMENT IS
CRI~CIAI~ TO THE RIIRAI~ AREAS OF COI,I~IER COl INTY.
Item # 16F 10
BUDGET AMENDMENT REPORT - BA #04-171, FOR THE
STRUCTURAL REPAIR OF 30% OF THE BOAT SLIPS AT
COCOHATCHEE PARK; AND BA #04-173, TO PAY FOR
INCREASE TO THE CONTRACT FOR THE GOODLETTE ROAD
PROJF, CT
Item # 16F 11
A CONSENT TO USE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PELICAN
BAY FOUNDATION, INC., AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR A
PORTION OF THE WATER MANAGEMENT EASEMENT
LOCATED ON PARCEL B, PELICAN BAY UNIT SIXTEEN, TO
CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, MAINTAIN AND UTILIZE A PARKING
ARF, A~ I,ANDSCAPING AND A FII HI.D1NG WITHIN AND
Item# 16G 1
303
April 13, 2004
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO INCREASE BOTH THE PURCHASE
OF FUEL AND THE SALE OF FUEL AT MARCO ISLAND
AIRPORT. AS DETAIIJED IN THE F, XF, CI ITIVE SIJMMARY.
Item # 16H 1
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR PAYMENT, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $50.00, TO ATTEND THE COLLIER COUNTY
MEDICAL SOCIETY'S ANNUAL MEETING AND
INSTALLATION OF OFFICERS FOR 2004-2005 ON MAY 8, 2004,
AT THE REGISTRY HOTEL. SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PIIRPOSE AS A SPEAKER.
Item # 16H2
RESOLUTION 2004-101: EXTENDING THE TERM OF THE
COMMUNITY CHARACTER/SMART GROWTH ADVISORY
COMMITTEE. AMENDS RESOI,I ITION 2003-165.
Item # 16I 1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE- FILED AND/OR
REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the
Board of County Commissions, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
304
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
April 13, 2004
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Districts:
Tuscany Reserve Community Development District - Minutes for
December 11, 2003; Affidavit of Publication; Special Warranty Deed;
Promissory Note, Easement, Bill of Sale, Financial Report for December
11, 2003
H:DataJFormat
April 13, 2004
Item #16Jl
DETERMINE WHETHER THE PURCHASES OF GOODS AND
SERVICES DOCUMENTED IN THE DETAILED REPORT OF
OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS FROM MARCH 1, 2004 THROUGH
MARCH 31, 2004 SERVE A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE AND
AUTHORIZE EXPENDITURE OF COUNTY FUNDS TO SATISFY
SAID PURCHASES. THIS REPORT IS AVAILABLE FOR
INSPECTION AND REVIEW IN THE COUNTY MANAGER'S
OEEICR .
Item #16Kl
THE MAKING OF AN OFFER OF WDGMENT TO
RESPONDENT, NANCY L. JOHNSON PERRY, SUCCESSOR-
TRUSTEE OF THE DOROTHY L. JOHNSON REVOCABLE
INTER VIVOS TRUST UNDER AGREEMENT DATED JUNE 11,
1998, IN THE AMOUNT OF $29,520.00 AS FULL
COMPENSA TION, EXCEPTING ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS,
FOR CONDEMNATION FOR PARCELS 136, 836, AND 936 IN
THE LA WSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. DA VID J FREY,
ET AL., CASE NO. 03-2353-CA. AS DETAILED IN THE
Item # 16K2
STIPULATED ORDER OF TAKING AND FINAL WDGMENT
RELATIVE TO THE ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 159 AND 160
IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. ANTHONY
DINORCIA, JR., ET AL., CASE NO. 04-0031-CA. (VANDERBILT
BEACH ROAD PROJECT #63051). $40,000.00 TO BE PAID TO
RESPONDENT, ANTHONY DINORCIA, JR. AS FULL
COMPENSATION FOR THE PROPERTY RIGHTS TAKEN,
305
-'"
---------
April13,2004
$2,244.00 TO BE PAID TO LORENA HART LUDOVICI,
ESQUIRE FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND A $100.00 SERVICE FEE
Item #16K3
STIPULATED FINAL WDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 137,737,837, AND 937 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. HELEN TWITTY, ET
AL., CASE NO. 03-2284-CA. (GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY
PROJECT #60027). $30,300.00 TO BE PAID TO RESPONDENT,
HELEN TWITTY, AS FULL COMPENSATION FOR THE
PROPERTY RIGHTS TAKEN, $1,584.00 TO KEN JONES,
ESQUIRE FOR ATTORNEY FEES, AND $3,250.00 FOR
APPRAISAL FEES. STAFF TO DEPOSIT SUM OF $6,300 INTO
THE COURT REGISTRY AND DIRECT PAYMENT OF $100.00
Item #16K4
MAKING OF AN OFFER OF WDGMENT TO RESPONDENT,
EDITH G. STREET, IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000.00 AS FULL
COMPENSATION FOR RESPONDENT'S UNDIVIDED ONE-
HALF INTEREST IN PARCEL NO. 159A, EXCEPTING
ATTORNEY'S FEES, COSTS, AND INTEREST, IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. ANDY R. MORGAN, ET
AL., CASE NO. 02-5169-CA. (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT
Ii6OOl&.)
Item #16K5
S TIPULA TED FINAL WDG MENT RELATIVE TO THE
ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 196 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. ROBERT W. PIEPLOW, ET AL., CASE NO.
306
April 13,2004
02-2133-CA. (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT #60018) $7,000.00
TO BE PAID TO THE RESPONDENT AS FULL
Item #16K6
MAKING OF AN OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENTS
JIMMIE L. ROGERS AND BETTY L. ROGERS FOR THE FEE
TAKING OF PARCEL NO. 200 IN THE AMOUNT OF $74,800.00,
AS FULL COMPENSATION, EXCEPTING ATTORNEY'S FEES,
COSTS, AND INTEREST IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. JEFFREY A RICHARDSON, ET AL., CASE NO. 02-
Item #16K7
MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND STIPULATED
FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO PARCELS 151 AND 152 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JOHN F. SUDAL, ET
AL., CASE NO. 02-5168-CA. (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT
#60018). $190,000.00 TO BE PAID TO RESPONDENT, MARILYN
LEWIS, AS FULL COMPENSATION FOR THE PROPERTY
RIGHTS TAKE AND $13,200.00 TO DOUGLAS L. RANKIN, ESQ.
EOR.AIIORNEY.EE S
Item # 16K8
MAKING OF AN OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT
JAMES S. GRAN FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL NO. 167
IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,500.00 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. THOMAS F. SALZMAN, ET AL., CASE NO.
Item # 16K9
307
April 13, 2004
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
EASEMENT ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 326 IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. AGNALDO DELIMA, ET AL.
(GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD PROJECT #63041). $2,000.00 TO
BE PAID TO THE RESPONDENT AS FULL COMPENSATION
FOR THE PROPERTY RIGHTS TAKEN. STAFF TO DEPOSIT
$1,100.00 WITH THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT AND DIRECT
Item # 1 7 A - Moved to Item #8H
Item # 1 7B
ORDINANCE 2004-22: RE: PETITION SE-03-AR-3766, AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 02-43, THE
BALMORAL PUD, TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR IN
SECTION 1.2 - LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE ORDINANCE TO
THE BALMORAL PUD FOR PROPERTY THAT IS LOCATED ON
THE EAST SIDE OF LIVINGSTON ROAD (C.R. 881) AND THE
WEST SIDE OF WHIPPOORWILL LANE, IN SECTION 8,
TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
ELORID A
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2004-102: AUTHORIZING A CHANGE IN
FORMAT TO WATER AND WASTEWATER SCHEDULE TWO
OF APPENDIX A, ORDINANCE 2001-13 IN ORDER TO
PROVIDE CLARITY AND CONSISTENCY IN THE
ASSESSMENT OF RESIDENTIAL WATER AND WASTEWATER
IMPACT FEES; AUTHORIZING THE INCLUSION OF THE
EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL CONNECTION (ERC) VALUE
RANGE FOR A ONE AND A HALF INCH (1.5") WATER METER
IN ORDER TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR;
308
----.-- -
April 13, 2004
AUTHORIZING THE REPEAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 2003-93
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:09 p.m:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
æ~d~
DONNA FIALA, Chainnan
ATTEST:
DWIGHTE.BROCK,CLERK
"" ", '~';"""'"
" "t~. f:.tl:fJ; ,. ",
Y." ...,,~
.'~.~) ':--\ .ð.CJ.
::,':0.:" "",:,':7""'.,'" '.~~,: '
Atfi' ,t1,u,"tO; frl(n '.
....-'.. ----'C".-
gaa...".. ~ l~ .: ,ú: :
:ê~ \. \-J..Jf>~.. ,-"'to. ,:'
\~'~é,. '~' ~~. .. , '~~ res approved by the Board on fY)~
'::~f~GM . . .
as presentë ."./ or as corrected
1\ ) '2.00 Y
,
TRANSCRIPT PREP ARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY CO DR T
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY TERRI LEWIS AND CHERIE
NO TTIN G HAM
309
--.,