BCC Minutes 06/08/2004 R
June 8, 2004
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida JUNE 08, 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 Appeáls and as the governing board(s) of such
special districts as have been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:02 a.m. in REGULAR
SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples,
Florida, with the foIIowing members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
Jim Coletta
Fred Coyle
Frank Halas
ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Administrator
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
tì»'~'>
:::::,
l
M". ,',,,, ~
. > ".,<:." >,
AGENDA
June 8, 2004
9:00 AM
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 PRESENT A TION OF
THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED REQUIRES
THA T ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING
ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK
TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS
DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT
ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH
EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR
TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC
PETITIONS."
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
1
June 8, 2004
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 IMP AIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Pastor Dale Benson, Naples First Church of the Nazarene
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. May 11, 2004 - BCC/Regular Meeting
C. May 18, 2004 BCC/ Airport Authority Workshop
3. SERVICE AWARDS
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation to designate the week of June 14-18,2004 as Florida
D.A.R.E. Officer's Week. To be accepted by Captain Tom Davis of the
Collier County Sheriffs Office.
5. PRESENTATIONS
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
2
June 8, 2004
_····~,_···__·,____...",·__~_w~~.··.~_,_~. .....
A. Public Petition request by Mr. Mark Finger to discuss expansion of
existing packing plants in Immokalee.
B. Public Petition request by Mr. Dwight Nadeau to discuss impact fee refund
for Summit Place.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN
IN AND EX PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY
COMMISSION MEMBERS. THIS ITEM CONTINUED FROM
THE MAY 25, 2004 BCC MEETING. CU-2003-AR-4003 Apostolic
Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus, Inc. represented by Terrance
Kepple, of Kepple Engineering, Inc., requesting Conditional Use #1 of the
"E" zoning district, to allow a "Church or other Place of Worship" for
property located at 1235 San Marcos Boulevard, in Section 31, Township
49, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 4.86 acres.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Consider the Adoption of an Ordinance establishing the Wentworth Estates
Community Development District (CDD) pursuant to Section 190.055,
Florida Statutes (FS).
B. Public Hearing for the 2003 Cycle 1 Growth Management Plan
Amendments. (Transmittal hearing).
C. Public Hearing for a separate portion of the 2003 Cycle 1 Growth
Management Plan Amendments. (Transmittal hearing).
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Contractors' Licensing Board.
B. Confirmation of member to the Collier County Coastal Advisory
Committee.
C. Appointment of Commissioners to serve on the Value Adjustment Board
and set the date for the organizational meeting.
3
June 8, 2004
~-~-'-<"-"""-"'~~"-'~'-'-'--'--'-
D. Appointment of member to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.
E. Appointment of member to the Collier County Airport Authority.
F. This item to be heard at 9:30 a.m. A resolution supporting the United
States Law titled "Uniting and Strengthening America By Providing
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism,"
commonly known as the Patriot Act. (Commissioner Coyle)
G. Highlight and honor volunteers that serve on the 50+ advisory boards.
(Commissioner Henning)
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Consideration of request by the Shelter for Abused Women to the Board of
County Commissioners to provide an annual contract and financial
assistance of$100,000 for FY 05. (Marla Ramsey, Interim Director, Public
Services Division)
B. Recommendation to authorize the development of competitive
procurement documents for a solid waste collections contract. (Jim
DeLony, Administrator, Public Utilities Division)
C. Recommendation to approve the attached Agreement For Sale And
Purchase for acquisition of the former Arthrex, Inc. building and expenses
associated with its purchase, necessary renovations, and relocation of
Transportation Division offices from leased facilities at a total cost not to
exceed $6,309,000. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation
Services Division)
D. Recommendation to award Professional Services Agreement for
Engineering Services related to Wellfield Reliability Improvements and
Expansion, RFP 04-3593, and approve an initial Work Order under the
same Agreement in the amount of$4,999,218 encompassing Projects
70158,70892,70899,71002,71006,71011, and 75005. (Jim DeLony,
Administrator, Public Utilities Division)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
4
June 8, 2004
A. That the Board review the proposed Straw Ballot, which ballot asks the
voters of Collier County whether they wish the Board of County
Commissioners to establish a Charter Commission to draft a proposed
County Charter for Collier County, which proposed Charter would then be
voted on at a Special Election, at an estimated cost of $500,000; instruct
staff as to any modification desired; and if the Board is so inclined,
consider and approve a Resolution ordering and calling a referendum
election to be held on November 2, 2004, relating to this Straw Ballot
issue, which Resolution directs the Supervisor of Elections to place the
Straw Ballot proposition for vote at the November 2004 General Election,
and provides for appropriate notice.
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR BA YSHORE GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
A. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTING AS THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. To approve a budget
amendment of$5,000 for the expenditure of monies from Fund 187-
Bayshore/ Gateway Triangle for expenses related to the Haldeman Creek
National Art Festival. All funds will be reimbursed to the Naples Art
Association.
B. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTING AS THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. To approve the
increased funding in the amount of $64,000 for the Site Improvement
Grant and $48,000 for the Impact Fee Assistance Grant Programs as
recommended by the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment
Advisory Board; approve the attached budget amendment request for the
two grant programs; and authorize the County Attorney and Staff to draft
any necessary agreements, ordinance, resolution language.
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
5
June 8, 2004
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Request to grant final approval of the roadway (public and private),
drainage, water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Tarpon
Bay". Portions of the roadway and drainage improvements will be
privately maintained and certain portions will be maintained by
Collier County. The water and sewer improvements will be
maintained by Collier County
2) Request to grant final approval of the roadway (private), drainage,
water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Capistrano at
Grey Oaks" the roadway and drainage improvements will be privately
maintained, the water improvements will be maintained by the City of
Naples, the sanitary sewerage collection system will be maintained by
Collier County
3) Request to grant final approval of the roadway (private), drainage,
water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Santa Rosa at
Olde Cypress" the roadway and drainage improvements will be
privately maintained, the water and sewer improvements will be
maintained by Collier County.
4) Request to accept a Construction, Maintenance and Escrow
Agreement for Site Excavation at Tuscany Cove.
5) The Board of County Commissioners actin!! as the Community
Redevelopment Aeencv. Recommendation that the Collier County
Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Accept the 2003 Annual
Report of the CRA, Direct Staff to File the Annual Report with the
Clerk of the Circuit Court and Recommend its Acceptance by the
Board of County Commissioners (BCC).
6) Approve a Budget Amendment recognizing the Fiscal Year 2005 U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) program
allocations and budgets.
7) Approve a Budget Amendment recognizing the Fiscal Year 2005
6
June 8, 2004
,- .. ""'"'-',.._.__.._-'--_..._._-..._..,.._._-,.^..._~." ,.,"^,.-..--..--...--
State Housing Initiative Partnership (SHIP) Program allocation and
budget.
8) Final Acceptance Of Water Utility Facilities For Berkshire Landings.
9) Collier County Board of County Commissioners' endorsement of
staffs approval of the application for the Job Creation Investment
Program and the Fee Payment Assistance Program by DLC Marine.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Approve the piggybacking of the City of West Palm Beach Contract
to purchase laid in place Polymer Modified Cold Mix Paving System
(Micro-Surfacing) for the Road Maintenance Department amount
estimated to be $175,000.00.
2) Recommendation to approve a resolution prohibiting the operation of
trucks and other commercial vehicles having a rated load-carrying
capacity in excess of one (1) ton from through-movements on Lely
Resort Boulevard at a cost of $300.
3) A Resolution of the Collier County Commissioners Authorizing the
Execution of a Pre-qualified Joint Participation Agreement (JP A) with
the Florida Department of Transportation for Marco Island Transit
Service Development (Operating Assistance) Funds in the amount of
$179,257.
4) The Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC)
authorizing the Chairman to enter into an Agreement with The Florida
Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD) as required
in connection with the Transportation Disadvantaged Trip and
Equipment Grant for the amount of $531,971.
5) A resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
(BCC) endorsing the 2004 membership apportionment of the Collier
County Metropolitan Planning Organization.
6) Approve a Grant of Utility Easement from Collier County to Florida
Power & Light Company which is required for the purpose of
relocating electrical service at Collier County EMS Station No. 12
7
June 8, 2004
(near the Collier County Fairgrounds) as part of the Immokalee Road
four-laning Project No. 60018. Fiscal impact: $15.50.
7) That the Board approve a contract for RFP 04-3585 "Provide and
install Equipment for Real Time Kinematic (RTK) Global Positioning
System (GPS) network", project number 510031, in the total amount
of $162, 181.
8) Accept grant funds from South Florida Water Management District
for Project 510031 Real Time Kinematic (RTK) Global Positioning
System (GPS) Network in the amount of $60,000.00.
9) Recommend Board's approval of Adopt-A-Road Program Agreements
(9) for Freedom Triangle, Iglesia Pentecostal Peniel, Neapolitan
Civitan Club, Jubilee Family Chiropractic, The Boardroom Surf Shop,
Soroptimist Club of Naples, Palmetto Ridge High School Marching
Band, VIP Realty, Rich Conte, Island Walk Homeowners Association.
10) A Resolution authorizing a speed limit decrease from forty-five miles
per hour (45 MPH) to thirty-five miles per hour (35 MPH) on
Northbrooke Drive from Northbrooke Plaza Drive to 200 feet north of
Mill Creek Lane for a distance of 0.2 miles. The approximate cost is
$400.00.
11) Approve Work Order No. BOC-FT-04-10 with Bonness, Inc. for
intersection improvements in the amount of $110,326.93 on Golden
Gate Parkway at Collier Boulevard, Project No. 66065.
12) A Resolution by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
authorizing the designation of$120,000 of Collier County's Federal
Transit Administration FTA) Section 5307 Formula Funds for the
Bonita Springs Area to the Lee County Board of County
Commissioners.
13) Approve Work Order No. APC-FT-04-01 with AP AC-Southeast, Inc.
for median improvements in the amount of$149,538.67 on Radio
Road at the San Marcos Boulevard intersection, Project No. 66065.
14) Approve and authorize an Easement Agreement and Sidewalk
Construction Agreement for the installation of a sidewalk along
8
June 8, 2004
Tower Road from Barefoot Williams Road to Collier Boulevard,
which is required for the purpose of maintaining the sidewalk as a
public right-of-way. Project Number 60171. Estimated fiscal impact:
$219.00.
15) Accept a Temporary Construction Easement and a Right of Entry for
the purpose of accessing a property for staging and maintenance
during the construction of the Palm Street Outfall Stormwater Project.
16) Reject bid #04-3654, Livingston Road (CR 881)(Pine Ridge Road-
Vanderbilt Beach Road) median landscape improvement construction
proj ect.
17) Approve contract Amendment No. 01-3216-A-02, (contract no. 01-
3216), with Woods Hole Group for the Haldeman Creek Restoration
Project (Project No. 51011) in the amount of$183,820.00.
18) Adopt a Resolution authorizing the acquisition of property by gift or
purchase for the purpose of assembling land to facilitate
improvements to canals and properties in the East Naples area
specifically located within the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement
Project. Fiscal Impact: $310,000.
19) Approve a Resolution approving, and authorizing the Chairman of the
Board of County Commissioners to execute, a Local Agency Program
Agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation, which
Agreement implements up to $250,000 in hardware and software
enhancements of the countywide Advanced Traffic Management
System by Collier County, with reimbursement by the Florida
Department of Transportation.
20) This item continued from the May 25,2004 BCC Meeting. Award bid
#04-3651,Livingston Road (Radio Road to Pine Ridge Road) median
landscape improvement construction project to Hannula Landscaping,
Inc. in the amount of $989,892.04.
21) To award bid No. 04-3659 "Ready Mix Concrete".
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
9
June 8, 2004
1) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfactions of
Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has
received payment and said Liens are satisfied in full for the 1993
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
Fiscal impact is $18.00 to record the Liens.
2) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfactions of
Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has
received payment and said Liens are satisfied in full for the 1994
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
Fiscal impact is $36.00 to record the Liens.
3) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfactions of
Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has
received payment and said Liens are satisfied in full for the 1995
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
Fiscal impact is $58.50 to record the Liens.
4) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfactions of
Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has
received payment and said Liens are satisfied in full for the 1996
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
Fiscal impact is $58.50 to record the Liens.
5) Recommendation to approve and execute Satisfactions of Notice of
Claim of Lien for Sanitary Sewer System Impact Fee. Fiscal impact is
$18.00 to record the Satisfactions.
6) Recommendation to approve the Satisfactions of Lien documents filed
against real property for abatement of nuisance and direct the Clerk of
Courts to record same in the public records of Collier County, Florida.
Fiscal impact is $60.00 to record the Liens.
7) Recommendation to approve Work Order UC-009 in the amount of
$355,000.00 with Mitchell & Stark Construction Company, for the
North County Regional Water Treatment Plant Degasifier Blower
Enclosures Noise Abatement Project, Contract 04-3535, Project
70063.
8) Recommendation to approve Work Order # UC- 013 in the amount of
10
June 8, 2004
$729,000 for Pump Station 107 Improvements to Douglas N. Higgins,
Inc., under contract 04-3535 - Annual Contract For Underground
Utility Contracting Services, Project 73945.
9) Recommendation to approve committee selection of firms for
"Invitation to Qualify" ITQ #04-3648 for Dredging Contractors to
compete for the Collier County & City of Naples Major Beach
Renourishment Project, #90527.
10) Recommendation to approve award of bid 04-3664 in the Amount of
$822,998 for Pump Station 103 Improvements to Douglas N. Higgins
Inc. Project 73945.
11) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment in the amount of
$35,000, and a Work Order, under Contract #01-3271, Fixed Term
Professional Engineering Services for Coastal Zone Management
Projects, with Humiston & Moore Engineers for Hideaway Beach
Renourishment Plans, Specifications, Construction Cost Estimate, and
Bid Document Preparation, Project 90502, in the amount of $45,000.
12) Recommendation to approve budget amendments recognizing positive
carry forward variance in the Water Pollution Control Fund (114) in
the amount of 481,700.
13) Recommendation to approve Amendment No.3 for Contract GC526
with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to perform
petroleum storage facility assessments and inspections.
14) Recommendation to award RFQ # 04-0334 under Contract 03-3349,
to Surety Construction Company for the Public Utilities Division
Building H Renovations in the amount of$199,557.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve operating expenditures in an amount not
to exceed $10,000 and staff support for the coordination of activities
and promotion associated with Freedom Month.
2) Authorize purchase of park fixtures from Wausau Tile at a cost of
$37,826.38 for park projects and maintenance.
11
June 8, 2004
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to award bid # 04-3630 in the amount of$330,427
"Facade Renovations of the Collier County Courthouse" to Surety
Construction Company.
2) That the Board of County Commissioners reject the bids received
under Bid S04-3620 for Sale of Surplus Aircraft Cessna 182.
3) Report and ratify staff-approved change orders and changes to work
orders to Board-approved contracts.
4) Approve Extension of Contract #99-2920 "Document Imaging and
Storage System".
5) Authorize the sale of Electronic Document Management System
equipment to Image-l in the amount of $7,000.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommendation to authorize staff to enter into contract negotiations
with Public Financial Management, Inc. (PFM) to serve as financial
advisor to Collier County.
2) Approve two (2) Tourist Development Category "C-2" Grant
Applications and two (2) Tourism Agreements for Naples Botanical
Garden and the Conservancy of SW Florida for a total amount of
$317,650 for FY 05.
3) Approve Participation Agreement with Platinum Television Group,
Inc. and an expenditure of $28,700 for Pulse on America Television
segment.
4) Approve a Tourist Development Category "A" Grant Application and
a Budget Amendment for the Vanderbilt Beach Easement Access
Boardwalk for Fiscal Year 2004 in the Amount of $148,500.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/ORBAYSHORE GATEWAY
TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
12
June 8, 2004
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Seeking reimbursement for attending the SWFTI Post-Session
Legislative forum on June 2, 2004; $35.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners designate the
Sheriff as the Official Applicant and Program Point-of-Contact for the
United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance,
Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program, accept the Grant when
awarded and approve applicable budget amendments.
2) That the Board of County Commissioners make a determination of
whether the purchases of goods and services documented in the
Detailed Report of Open Purchase Orders serve a valid public purpose
and authorize the expenditure of County funds to satisfy said
purchases. A copy of the Detailed Report is on display in the County
Manager's Office, 2nd Floor, W. Harmon Turner Building, 3301 East
Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Board of County Commissioners Approval of the Settlement
Agreement in Health Care Reit, Inc. v. Collier County-Case No. 02-
5002-CA & Collier County v. Certain Lands Upon Which Impact
Fees are Delinquent-Case No. 03-231-CA, now pending in the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court for Naples, Collier County, Florida.
2) Approve Agreed Order and Authorize Payment of Planning Fees for
Parcel 123 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Anthony F.
Jancigar, Trustee, et. aI., Case No. 00-0142-CA (Pine Ridge Road
Project #60111).
13
June 8, 2004
3) Authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondents, Rufus
F. Duff and Carolyn H. Duff, for Parcel No. 130 in the amount of
$16,300 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. North Naples Fire
Control & Rescue District, et aI., Case No. 02-1702-CA (Goodlette
Road Project 60134).
4) Approve the Agreed Order Awarding Costs as to Parcel 167A in the
lawsuit styled Collier County v. Andy R. Morgan, et aI., Case No. 02-
5169-CA, Immokalee Road Project 60018 (total cost of$6,512.42).
5) Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the fee simple
acquisition of Parcel 147 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Ziad
Shahla, et aI., Case No. 04-600-CA (Vanderbilt Beach Rd. Project
63051 ).
6) Request by the Housing Finance Authority of Collier County for
Approval of Resolution Authorizing the Authority to Issue Multi-
Family Housing Revenue Bonds to be used to Finance a Qualifying
Apartment Project.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDA TION 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-03-AR-4395, Hamilton Harbor, Inc.,
represented by Anita Jenkins of Wilson Miller, Inc., and George Varnadoe,
14
June 8, 2004
ofCheffy, Passidomo, Wilson and Johnson, P.A., requesting a rezone from
Planned Unit Development (PUD) to a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
known as the Hamilton Harbor PUD for the purpose of reducing the number
of dry storage slips from 450 to 325 and reducing the number of seats in the
restaurant from 150 to 100 in order to be consistent with the Inter-local
Government Agreement between the City of Naples and Collier County that
was approved on May 27, 2003. Approximately 154 acres of this project are
located within the City of Naples and is zoned Planned Development (PD)
while approximately 21 acres are within Collier County and located on the
south side of Bay Street, and approximately one-half mile south of the
Thomasson Drive in Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County, Florida.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE
MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
15
June 8, 2004
June 8, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you all please take your seats.
MR. MUDD: You have a hot mic., ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
The meeting of June -- what is this date?
MR. MUDD: June 8th, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- June 8th, 2004 of the Board of County
Commissioners will come to order.
Our invocation today will be by Pastor Dale Benson of Naples
First Church of the Nazarene. Would you all please stand with me,
please.
PASTOR BENSON: Let's pray. Our most gracious Heavenly
Father, we thank you so much for this day that we are able to be
gathered together. We pray, Lord, that you would be with our county
commissioners today as they make decisions, that you would give
them wisdom and guidance and direction.
Lord, we pray not only for them but also for our state officials
and our national officials, and especially today President Bush. Lord,
we pray that you'd be with our troops who are overseas representing
us, preserving our peace, preserving our safety . We pray that you
would give them your peace, that you would also give them
protection.
Finally, Lord, we pray that you'd be with us in all that is said and
is done today, and that we would give glory to Your name, or it's in
the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit that we pray.
Amen.
Would you join me in the pledge to our flag.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2A
REGULAR CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED
2
June 8, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And now our County
Attorney, David. Do you have anything on this agenda?
MR. WEIGEL: Hi. No, nothing specifically to change,
Commissioner, thank you. I will note that on the suggested change
list is Item 16(K)(1), which is under consent agenda, County Attorney,
which had to do with request and recommendation for approval of a
settlement agreement with REIT, Merrill Gardens, relating to the
school impact fees and adult living facilities.
Upon query, I thought if I perhaps provide a little additional
information, it may not be necessary to move it, but we're clearly
disposed to operate any way the commission would like.
We note that this, as with some of the others, this is the next to
the last of many cases that the county has pursued very vigorously.
The initial amount of fee deemed owed, it seems high comparatively
to the settlement here, but I would indicate, without going too far on
the record, that this is a case that would otherwise go to trial and
issues based on prior court experience may be difficult and uncertain
to determine or predict for the board and for the school board as to the
result.
Weare pleased, however, to note that there is a in fact net
positive result that the board should approve the settlement agreement
for the school board, once again, but also for the county, there would
otherwise be a requirement, and we recognize this, irregardless of the
outcome of a lawsuit, that the county would owe $9,000, thereabouts,
based on overpayment of impact fees, which would come from the
county coffers, and that this would also be released under the
settlement.
So it was with that and some other legal issues in mind that we've
worked hard to head off but thought better not to pursue further at this
point, that we brought the settlement agreement to you today, but
perhaps with not as much detail as you might like.
So I could either entertain any question you might have now or at
3
June 8, 2004
the regular agenda, if you should move it to the regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So David, did you just say that you want
to leave it where it is?
MR. WEIGEL: We're disposed to leave it where it is, unless
there's further query to move it to the agenda.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I was just going to say,
this was my request that he add a little more detail to it, because I
thought the executive summary was lacking. I don't have any
intention to pull it, but one of the things that you mentioned, David,
about the fact that they have got a -- the --
MR. WEIGEL: Oh, yeah, in fact, the deed--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- deed restriction.
MR. WEIGEL: They have of course put deed restrictions in
place relatively early in the game, clearly before they ever had
school-aged children inhabiting the facility. The deed restriction was
not in place at the time of construction, but again, based upon some of
our prior discussions we've had with judges as we've proceeded
through the many cases that we have here, we felt that we may be in a
better position now than expend additional time and expenditures and
incur risks that we may have, both from a fiscal and legislative nature
relating to our impact fees.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think with the additional
information that you gave us this morning, along with prior
information that we have read as this case has proceeded on, I'd just as
soon leave it on the agenda as it is and go forward at this point in time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll make a motion to that effect,
yes, I will.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: On the consent agenda?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
4
June 8, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. 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.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: W e'llleave it there. Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Anything else, David?
MR. WEIGEL: No, that should be it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And our County Manager, Jim
Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, Commissioners, agenda changes,
Board of County Commissioners meeting June 8th, 2004. First item is
to add Item 9(H), and that is a discussion of a resolution and/or
appropriate action to oppose the newly proposed stringent Naples Bay
speed zones by the Naples City Council. The areas affected are:
Dollar Bay, Naples Bay and Gordon Pass. And that's at
Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Coletta's request.
The next item is to add Item 10(H), and that's a recommendation
to approve change order Number 1 to Contract 04-3622 with Hannula
Landscaping, Inc. for Rattlesnake Hammock landscape beautification.
It's Project No. 65021. And that's at staffs request. And that's a
walk-on item that came in late because they discovered rock. And
that's what predicated this change order to the contract they're working
on right now.
Next item is to withdraw Item 16(B)(2), and that's a
recommendation to approve a resolution prohibiting operation of
trucks and other commercial vehicles having a related road (sic)
5
June 8, 2004
carrying capacity in excess of one ton from through movements on
Lely Resort Boulevard at a cost of $300. And that's at staffs request.
And there is a little bit of -- we have a conflict with the south sewer
plant and how the delivery trucks get back and forth to that particular
plant. We want to make sure that's resolved before we post it for one
ton and then we're stuck going down St. Andrews Boulevard. And so
we'll bring that back at a later time.
Next item is to move Item 16(B)(18) to 10(E), and that's to adopt
a resolution authorizing the acquisition of property by gift or purpose
-- excuse me, by gift or purchase for the purpose of assembling land to
facilitate improvements to canals and properties in the East Naples
area specifically located within the Lely area stonnwater improvement
project. And that's at Commissioner Coyle's request.
Next item is to move Item 16(D)(2) to 10(F), and that's to
authorize purchase of park fixtures from Wausau Tile at a cost of
$37,826.38 for park projects and maintenance. And that's at
Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Coletta's request.
The next item is to move Item 16(F)(2) to 10(G). And that's to
approve two tourist development category C-2 grant applications and
two tourism agreements for Naples Botanical Garden and the
Conservancy of Southwest Florida for a total amount of $317,650 for
FY '05. And that was moved at Commissioner Henning and
Commissioner Coletta's request.
The next item on this change sheet has left -- is no longer
applicable, and this item is on the consent agenda by board vote just a
couple of minutes ago.
We have a couple of time certain items today, Madam Chair.
Item 9(F) to be heard at 9:30, and that's a resolution supporting the
United States law titled Uniting and Strengthening America by
providing appropriate tools required to intercept and obstruct
terrorism, commonly known as the Patriot Act.
Next item we have of time certain is Item 10(A) to be heard at
6
June 8, 2004
1 :00 p.m. And that's a consideration of a request by the Shelter for
Abused Women to the Board of County Commissioners to provide an
annual contract and financial assistance of $1 00,000 for FY '05.
And lastly -- well, I can't say lastly now, because Leo just gave
me something else I need to get right in. But we have a note, Item
17(B)(7), there was a scriveners error. The last sentence of paragraph
two under consideration should read: This enables the user to identify
his/her position horizontally and vertically anywhere in Collier
County west of State Road 29, rather than as it reads today, east of
State Road 29, with accuracy of plus or minus two centimeters. And
that correction was noted by several commissioners, okay, as they
were going through their reading.
And lastly, I think I have to get Mr. Bellows up to the podium
and he needs to read something into the record on Item 17(A). And
17(A) has to do with -- get to my notes -- has to do with the Hamilton
Harbor PUD changes.
Mr. Bellows?
MR. BELLOWS: Good morning. For the record, Ray Bellows.
The PUD document that you have in your agenda packet was
revised by the County Attorney's Office to be consistent with the
interIocal agreement. It had to do with an issue revolving (sic) the
water management requirements and a 25- foot buffer. The interlocal
agreement had some specific language, and the PUD document has
been revised and attached to the ordinance as consistent with the
interIocal agreement.
I'd be happy to answer any questions.
MR. MUDD: Is that it, Mr. Bellows?
MR. BELLOWS: That's it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I just want to make sure
there's no misunderstanding. The purpose of this is to revise the PUD
document so it's consistent with the interIocal agreement which we
7
June 8, 2004
have previously already approved and signed.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: That's all I have, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Commissioners, do you have any ex parte disclosures for the
summary agenda? Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no further changes in the
summary agenda. Item 17(A), no communication, but I did read some
media infonnation on that whole issue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With reference to Item 17(A), the
Hamilton Harbor PUD, I have had meetings, I've received
correspondence and e- mails and telephone calls with opponents and
proponents of the Hamilton Harbor project for the past five and a half
years. So if anyone wishes to take a look at the file, they can see it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have no changes on the agenda as
stated right now.
As far as ex parte, I've got correspondence and e-mail on 7(A),
which will be later on. And 17(A), I've just got e-mail in regards to
that, and it's all here in the record.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I have no other changes to
the agenda. And the summary agenda, 17(A), I have had meetings,
e-mail and met with staff on several occasions. And everything's in
my file, if anyone wishes to see it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And I have no additional
changes to the summary agenda or the regular agenda. On 17(A) I
have disclosures, I've met with George Varnadoe and Dick Baker and
8
June 8, 2004
asked some questions. I've toured Hamilton Harbor with Dr. Dan
Jackson on the -- by water just to see what it looked like. I've met
with Joe Schmitt. I've had conversations, I've received e-mails and
read the newspapers. So I have a little bit of background on this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I move to approve today's
agenda as amended, the regular agenda, consent and summary.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All 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.)
9
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
June 8, 2004
Add Item 9H: Discussion of a resolution and/or appropriate action to oppose the
newly proposed stringent Naples Bay speed zones by the Naples City Council.
The areas affected are: Dollar Bay, Naples Bay and Gordon Pass.
(Commissioners Henning and Coletta request.)
Add Item 10H Recommendation to approve change order No. 1 to Contract 04-
3622 with Hannula Landscaping, Inc, for Rattlesnake Hammock Landscape
Beautification (Project No. 65021). (Staff request.)
Withdraw Item 16B2: Recommendation to approve a resolution prohibiting the
operation of trucks and other commercial vehicles having a rated load-carrying
capacity in excess of one (1) ton from through-movements on Lely Resort
Boulevard at a cost of $300. (Staff request.)
Move Item 16B18 to 10E: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the acquisition of
property by gift or purchase for the purpose of assembling land to facilitate
improvements to canals and properties in the East Naples area specifically
located within the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project. (Commissioner
Coyle request.)
Move Item 16D2 to 10F: Authorize purchase of park fixtures from Wausau Tile at a
cost of $37,826.38 for park projects and maintenance. (Commissioners Coletta
and Coyle request.)
Move Item 16F2 to 10G: Approve two (2) Tourist Development Category "C-2"
Grant Applications and two (2) Tourism Agreements for Naples Botanical Garden
and the Conservancy of SW Florida for a total amount of $317,650 for FY-05.
(Commissioners Henning and Coletta request.)
Move Item 16K1 to 12B: Board of County Commissioners approval of the
Settlement Agreement in Health Care Reit, Inc. v. Collier County Case No. 02-5002-
CA & Collier County v. Certain Lands Upon Which Impact Fees are Delinquent -
Case No. 03-231-CA, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court for
Naples, Collier County, Florida. (Commissioner Coletta request.)
Time Certain Items:
Item 9F to be heard at 9:30 a.m. A resolution supporting the United States Law
titled "Uniting and Strengthening America By Providing Appropriate Tools
Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism," commonly known as the Patriot
Act.
Item 10A to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. Consideration of request by the Shelter for
Abused Women to the Board of County Commissioners to provide an annual
contract and financial assistance of $100,000 for FY-05.
Note: Item 1687: The last sentence of paragraph 2 under "Considerations"
should read: "This enables the user to identify his/her position horizontally and
vertically anywhere in Collier County (west of S.R. 29) (rather than "east of S.R.
29") with accuracy of +/-2 centimeters." (Staff request.)
June 8, 2004
Item #2B & 2C
MINUTES OF THE MAY 11, 2004 REGULAR MEETING AND
THE MAY 18, 2004 AIRPORT AUTHORITY WORKSHOP-
AEEROVED AS ERES.ENIED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve May 11 th,
2004 BCC regular meeting and May 18th, 2004 BCC airport
workshop.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, I have a motion and a second by
Commissioner Halas.
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.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. And we go on to the
proclamations now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No service awards?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We don't have any service awards?
MR. MUDD: No service awards, ma'am.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION TO DESIGNATE THE WEEK OF JUNE 14-18,
,
10
June 8, 2004
Your first proclamation is a proclamation to designate the
week of June 14th through 18th, 2004 as the Florida DARE Officers
Week, to be accepted by Captain Tom Davis of the Collier County
Sheriffs Office.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And would everybody come up here,
please, that has an interest in the DARE program or is here because of
the DARE program? Thank you.
This is the group I found in our office this morning. What a nice
way to start the day. Kids, if you wouldn't mind turning around to
take a look at that audience and so they can see you.
This is a proclamation.
WHEREAS, the drug abuse resistance education, which is
DARE, Drug Abuse Resistance Education, DARE, program was
founded in 1983 as a means of educating young people in resisting
pressures to experiment with drugs; and,
WHEREAS, the DARE program now is taught in all 50 states
and over 50 nations worldwide; and,
WHEREAS, the DARE program is recognized by leading
educational organizations as an effective means of teaching young
people the importance of proper decision making; and,
WHEREAS, the DARE program is unique in its use of certified
law enforcement officers as curriculum instructors; and,
WHEREAS, the dedication of these law enforcement officers to
the DARE program helps to foster positive relationships with
juveniles; and,
WHEREAS, this relationship between juveniles and law
enforcement officers has helped to prevent juvenile delinquency and
terroristic acts on school campuses, helping to provide safe schools for
our children to attend; and,
WHEREAS, the Florida DARE officers association will gather in
Marco Island, Florida, for its annual training conference from June
14th to the 18th, 2004.
11
June 8, 2004
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the week of June 14th
to 18th, 2004 be designated as Florida DARE Officers Week.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 8th of June -- this 8th day of
June, 2004. Board of County Commissioners, Collier County,
Florida, Donna Fiala, Chairman.
Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Coyle.
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.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let us congratulate you.
MR. MUDD: Okay, ladies, you all need to smile, okay? There
we go.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Tom, would you like to say a few words?
MR. DAVIS: Just thanks for allowing us to be here in morning
and that the DARE conference is going to be real good. We have
about 80 to 100 people that are going to show up for that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you like to take the microphone.
You can tell us all about it on the record then, thank you.
MR. DAVIS: The DARE program has been in Collier County
for probably about 10 years now. We started about 10 years ago and
it's now in every middle school and elementary school. We've been
doing it for quite some time. The deputies in the middle school do the
seventh grade and in the elementary school we do the fifth grade.
12
June 8, 2004
But along with the DARE program we have an junior deputy
camp-out, where the kids are allowed to go out and camp out during
the spring break. This year we had 430 girls the first night and we had
about 500 boys the second night. And they had a great time. It's an
overnight camp where they have a great time. That's a part of the
DARE program, because what we try to do is show them in the
classroom the good things about DARE and then we try to give them
something positive that they can enjoy. So they enjoy the DARE
camp, is what we call it. And this year we want to host the DARE
conference that's going to be on Marco Island the 14th through the
18th. And I think we're going to have a really good time. And we
look forward to any of you all that would like to come down and visit,
we appreciate it if you would. It's going to be a week of good times,
I've heard. So thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
These are the wonderful things that are happening in this
community and things that we don't hear enough about, I think.
Let's see, now we have -
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY MR. MARK FINGER TO
DISCUSS EXPANSION OF EXISTING PACKING PLANTS IN
IMMOKALEE - TO BE BROUGHT BACK ON A FUTURE
AGE.ND A - A E£R OVED
MR. MUDD: Next item, public petitions. Next item is 6(A),
which is public petition request by Mr. Mark Finger to discuss
expansion of existing packing plants in Immokalee.
Mr. Finger, if you'd please come up.
Mr. Y ovanovich is representing Mr. Finger.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm Mr. Finger for the short period of
13
June 8, 2004
time.
For the record, Rich Y ovanovich. Actually, this is a request on
behalf of Six L Farms. They're planning to increase two of their __
two of the four packing plants they have out in the Immokalee area.
And they're currently in the site development plan process at this
point, but they're held up on getting a building permit issued, due to
the review of the site plan. It also qualifies as an EDC fast-track
petition.
What we're asking is if we can be placed on your next agenda to
discuss the possibility of being allowed to apply for a foundation
permit with an appropriate bond in place in case there are any
discrepancies between the foundation we pour and the ultimate
approved SDP. We need this special consideration because we need
to have this done by October in order to be up and operating during
the season.
Just so you know, that each of these package plants will result in
75 new jobs in Immokalee paying 10 to $15 an hour, so that's 150 total
jobs. And 25 of those jobs will be permanent jobs, year round jobs,
not seasonal jobs.
So we're requesting that this be placed on a future agenda; needs
to be the next meeting since there will be a long break. And hopefully
between now and then we could work with staff with a proposal to
come back to allow for the construction of the foundation with an
appropriate bond to remove the foundation if it's inconsistent with the
approved SDP. And that's what we're requesting today.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, Mr. Yovanovich, they'd
be at risk -- they understand that if we allow this to go forward, in
other words, brought it up and if the commission did at that point in
time agree to do it, that they assume full risk and if the whole thing is
wrong or there's something wrong, that it's totally their responsibility
and there's no back peddling at that point?
14
June 8, 2004
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And we understand it would be
100 at our risk and we're willing to post appropriate security to back
up the fact that we understand that it's at our risk.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think this is a reasonable
request for consideration, and I would like to make a motion --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got some questions on it before
you make a motion on it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If there is a problem, then I assume
that you'll probably be coming in for a variance --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- or are you going to be held
accountable and make whatever restitution needs to be done as far as
laying out the foundation on this?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner Halas, our SDP is 100
percent consistent with the code requirements. It's just simply a
timing. We're not asking for any variances or anything. The SDP is
100 percent consistent with code requirements.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other question I have is why
are you coming before the board asking us to give you permission to
go ahead on this? It seems to me that there would have been a time
frame whereby the people that were going to build these buildings
would have realized that there was a time frame, an envelope that
needed to be taken care of and that they would have gotten their
necessary paperwork in and request in ahead of time so we wouldn't
be in this bind.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, unfortunately the time frame was
missed and we are in this bind to get this done. There is a mechanism
under the building code to get a slab permit ahead of getting a building
permit. There's just no mechanism to get that ahead of the approved
SDP.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I realize that. But what I'm saying
15
June 8, 2004
is why are we in a position that we have to act in this manner? Did
your representative not get the paperwork in on time is my question.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, we did not get the paperwork in
time to meet the schedule. It was not anything to do with county staff,
and we know county staff is working with us and the EDC to
fast-track this. It's an important project. The final decision to go
forward with the project obviously is cost sensitive. It was decided
that it made sense to go forward with the project and we're going
forward with it in all due haste. Unfortunately we could not get in in
time to meet the normal review schedule.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to add on to our next
agenda.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning to move this to our next agenda, and a second
by Commissioner Coletta. 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: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's a 5-0. Thank you.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY MR. DWIGHT NADEAU TO
DISCUSS IMP ACT FEE REFUND FOR SUMMIT PLACE - TO BE
16
June 8, 2004
BROUGHT BACK TO THE mL Y 27, 2004 MEETING -
AE£ROVED
MR. MUDD: Next item is public petition 6(B). That's a public
petition request by Mr. Dwight Nadeau to discuss impact fee refund
for Summit Place. Mr. Nadeau? Mr. Y ovanovich?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's the problem when you're listed
second on the application as the agent.
For the record, Rich Y ovanovich. This again is a request to be
placed on a future agenda. It's regarding the Summit Place project
which is on the -- on Vanderbilt Beach Road on the east side, north of
Vanderbilt Beach Road and 951. Actually, it's on 951.
Your materials in your agenda discuss the situation we were in.
We had applied for and received building permits for either a four-unit
building or a six-unit building, depending on the building permit,
which is a multi-family building. They're town homes, side-by-side
uni ts.
The permits were issued in October of '02. We pulled the
permits, paid our impact fees, began construction. Due to a glitch in
the system -- when you do a town home, you need a separate address.
What happened was is when we went back to get the separate
address, new permits were issued based upon those new addresses,
which changed the application date on the county system but not the
real application date of when we actually started construction.
So we began construction under an '02 building permit and paid
our impact fees. Due to the addressing change, the application date
was moved forward, if you will, to an '03 date, which then would
trigger the new road impact fees.
So we're requesting that we be placed on a future agenda to
discuss a refund of impact fees for 159 units totaling $217,830. To get
into, you know, what really is the impact, the impact was felt in
October of '02, not by merely getting a new address in '03. So we're
17
June 8, 2004
asking that we be placed on a future agenda to make a full-blown
presentation and obviously give staff an opportunity to discuss this
issue as well.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I'd like to hear from Joe
Schmitt on this, if we could.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator,
Community Development and Environmental Services.
Commissioner, this issue goes back probably a year, year and a
half. There is a glitch in the LDC that frankly identifies town homes,
and this was a product that was built as adjoined single-family
structures. And it was identified as a multi-family structure, requiring
the applicant to do a site development plan and then turn around --
after going through the site development plan review process, turn
around and go through a final plat and plan in order to subdivide, and
then sell it as individual single-family homes, adjoined single-family
homes.
The -- in an arrangement worked out with the developer and
represented by Mr. Nadeau, rather than have to go back through that
laborious process, we allowed him to draw building permits for each
building. And understand these are single-family -- adjoining
single- family structures, so the Florida Building Code requires
different construction standards because of the firewalls, two-hour
firewall, individual metered instead of the bank meters on the end of
the building, those type of things.
So what we did is we sort of -- well, we administratively gave
each of the units addresses. Our system would not allow us to go in
and do it because we did not issue individual building permits, so we
artificially loaded the addresses in order to allow them to begin the
proj ect, with the understanding, and this was the agreement we had
with the developer, that they would come back after the buildings
were constructed, survey, final plat and plan, and then file for
18
June 8, 2004
individual building permits.
So the timing of the issuing of the building permits is what is at
issue here, and that is the day that they drew the permits for the
specific buildings was the day that they paid the impact fees. And
those impact fees were assessed based on the issuing of the building
permits.
I did not back date those building permits. I have no way of
doing it, nor would 1. We issued a building permit for the building,
they built the buildings, then they did the final plat and plan, and then
we issued individual building permits for each of the buildings so they
could be sold as single-family residential units. That's basically the
simplicity of it is that the impact fees were assessed based on the date
that the building permit was issued. I don't know if it can be much
more simple than that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Joe, a question. When they came
forward with their site development plan --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- were they under the impression
that this site development plan was the same as putting --
grandfathering them in with the idea that those building permits would
be there at the time that they would request them?
MR. SCHMITT: The understanding was both with the
representative of the developer and the developer, and I'm going by
recollection here, I'd have to -- I don't have the exact date because I
didn't prepare to discuss this today. But from my recollection, the
agreement was that we allowed them in order to prevent or delay
construction for another year or at least another six to eight months as
they went from SDP to final plat, we allowed them to start
construction, issued a building permit for what was termed to be a
multi-family unit, which they then later came back and through plat
and plan surveyed and platted as individual lots and sold separately.
So when they did that legally, we came back and we issued the permit.
19
June 8, 2004
So to answer your question, yes, it was my belief that at the time
of this agreement, the developer fully understood what the procedures
were. This was a meeting between my building director, some of my
building officials, the folks in my planning department, or zoning as
they're now called, and with the impact fee coordinator. And we
worked out this arrangement so we would not delay this proj ect any
further.
I believe at that time there was a clear understanding of the
process. I don't think any of us anticipated that when they came back
to get the building permits that it would be at a time where of course
the new transportation impact fees which rose -- which increased
significantly, the impact fees that would be assessed, that they would
be impacted -- affected by the new impact fees, but that's just the way
the calendar worked. And I don't have any other explanation for it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess I'm trying to use a little bit
of common sense here. If the petitioner came before you and said hey,
I want to get in before -- under the wire prior to the increase in impact
fees, were they left with the impression that if they went in there with
a site development plan, even though they didn't pull their building
permits at that point in time, were they left with the impression that
they were going to be grandfathered in?
MR. SCHMITT: I don't think so, no. I don't think so because I
don't -- impact fees were not even the issue at this time. The issue was
how do we give each unit -- how do we artificially assign a building
address for each unit so we could then go back and issue building
permits once they went through final plat and plan. Impact fees were
not even discussed at that time. I don't even recall impact fees being
discussed.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: May I?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The difference, Commissioner Halas, is
that at the time we pulled the site development plan we paid for and
20
June 8, 2004
pulled our building permits. So we paid our per -- we paid our impact
fees at the time we pulled the SDP --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Wait a minute --
MR. SCHMITT: You only pulled 33 permits, not all the building
permits.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which was for all of the units in the
buildings.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, may I make a recommendation
that you bring this thing back at the next board meeting. Instead of
hassle it out right now, let's get all the information so everybody has a
chance to go back and get their records and go through this, and then
we'll finally hear it at the next meeting.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If I could add --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I move that we bring this back to
the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that's exactly what Commissioner
Coyle was just going to say, he's here. So -- I'm sorry, Commissioner
Halas, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no. I just said that I -- after
what the County Manager said, I said hey, let's bring it back to the
next meeting and discuss it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, we have a motion on the floor to
bring it back to the next meeting by Commissioner Halas, a second by
Commissioner Coyle. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, yes?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Still heard a discussion by the
community development administrator that he won't be able to have it
ready to bring back at our next meeting. Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: I think to allow sufficient time for the staff to
put the executive summary together, we're going to need at least 30
21
June 8, 2004
days, because the executive summaries are due this week for the next
meeting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Y ovanovich?
MR. SCHMITT: I could do that, if you care to have this done.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why don't we have it for the last
meeting in July then?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The only meeting in July.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't know, if we keep going this
way, we may have a couple more.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. So the motion has been
amended to bring it back to the last meeting in July, the only meeting
in July, brought to our attention by Commissioner Henning.
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.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that's a 5-0.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Next item, Commissioner, is a -- we're on the
Board of Zoning Appeals and we're under Item --
MS. FILSON: We have a time certain at 9:30.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a time certain at 9:30?
MS. FILSON: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Excuse me.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, SIr. And this is Commissioner
Coyle's -
22
June 8, 2004
Item #9F
RESOLUTION 2004-198 SUPPORTING THE UNITED STATES
LA W TITLED "UNITING AND STRENGTHENING AMERICA
BY PROVIDING APPROPRIATE TOOLS REQUIRED TO
INTERCEPT AND OBSTRUCT TERRORISM," COMMONLY
KNOWN AS THE PATRIOT ACT. -ADOPTED WI
AMENDMENT
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir -- ma'am, that's Item 9(F).
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I see a familiar face out there in the
audience. Don't we have Sheriff Don Hunter sitting there in the
audience? Good morning. Why don't you come on up and join us.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, this is Item 9(F). It's to be heard at
9:30. It's a resolution supporting the United States law titled Uniting
and Strengthening America, Providing Appropriate Tools Required to
Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, commonly known as the Patriot Act.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Should we read the resolution?
Okay. You want me to do that?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, yeah, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. The resolution states:
WHEREAS, the USA Patriot Act was created through bipartisan
action of the United States Congress by overwhelming support 98 for
and 1 opposed in the United States Senate, and 357 and 66 opposed in
the United States House of Representatives on October 26th, 2001;
and,
WHEREAS, the USA Patriot Act is recognized and specifically
constructed as a law enforcement tool to disrupt terror organizations
and prevent terrorist attacks; and,
WHEREAS, the USA Patriot Act has effectively encouraged law
enforcement at all levels to share intelligence and act collectively to
preserve public and officer safety; and,
23
June 8, 2004
WHEREAS, it has been reported that there has been no finding
of government abuse or misuse of the USA Patriot Act; and,
WHEREAS, the International Association of Chiefs of. Police,
the National Sheriffs Association and the Florida Domestic Security
Oversight Board have endorsed the USA Patriot Act.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida duly assembled and upon
lawful vote supports the USA Patriot Act as it is currently constituted,
urges Congress to renew its support by renewing the act, rejecting
sunsetting of the act and amending only those parts that may be found
through due process to be contrary to constitutioI)al consideration.
This resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote
favoring same this 8th day of June, 2004, Board of County
Commissioners, Donna Fiala, Chairman.
Madam Chair, I'll postpone any motion of approval until after the
Sheriff has an opportunity to speak, if you don't mind.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Certainly.
MR. HUNTER: Madam Chair, Commissioner Coyle. Good
morning, Commissioners. Well, I certainly appreciate the opportunity
to bring this forward with Commissioner Coyle.
Recent presentations to the community would suggest that both
the act is misunderstood as well as demonstrating a great deal of
support for the USA Patriot Act as it's currently construed.
As Commissioner Coyle's resolution I think appropriately
reflects, there has been no successful challenge of the USA Patriot Act
in any court of the land, and in fact, all that we have heard to date on
this matter have been purely emotional and misunderstood.
There are a number of provisions in the act that provide law
enforcement, state, federal and local, with additional tools that aid in
the investigation of terrorism, which as we all know is a criminal act,
but which typically requires a great deal of intelligence gathering prior
to the actual conclusion of any criminal investigation.
24
June 8, 2004
I think one of the most often quoted prOVISIons of this act
provides that there will be roving wire taps. F or instance, in the old
days, if you will, prior to September 11 th, 2001, what we would find
is in law enforcement you have a search warrant issued for the wire
tap, a judicial decree for the wire tap that would provide that you may
monitor a particular telephone number.
The new search warrant provided under the USA Patriot Act
provides that you are given the wire tap authorization for an
individual. So that if he owns or she owns 20 or 30 devices, phones
with different telephone numbers, you are monitoring the individual as
they attempt to make contact with their confederates as opposed to a
single telephone number.
These and other provisions of the act we believe are absolutely
critical for the investigation of terrorists and terrorist organizations.
And we -- as I say before, having heard not a single successful
challenge to the act, I have asked, with the cooperation of
Commissioner Coyle, that this board and this community as the
Domestic Security Oversight Board of the State of Florida has, that we
adopt resolution to support the act.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I understand where you're
coming from, and I guess maybe this is on the emotional side, Sheriff,
but I go to sporting events now and I also do a fair amount of travel by
the airlines, and also have been in the courthouse here. And I feel it's
an intrusion on my freedom because of a certain group of individuals,
and it's not an awful lot of individuals, of course, where we have to go
through time-consuming check lines, have to be searched. I feel it's --
I've lost some of my freedoms. And that's something that's very near
and dear to me. I spent some time in the U.S. military myself and
realize that that was one of the reasons I went into the service is to
hopefully that we wouldn't get to this state in this great land of ours.
25
June 8, 2004
And so I guess it is somewhat emotional that I feel that every
time I go through the airline security, I realize it's for my own
goodwill and my family's goodwill, but I remember the days ,when I
could walk in the courthouse without being searched, I know I could
go through the airline terminal without being searched, and any time I
went to sporting events, I didn't have to go through some type of a
search or procedure. So I'm concerned about this. '
The other thing that concerns me, if we do pass this resolution, I
would hope it wouldn't have a reflection your upcoming budget or any
budgets in the near future.
MR. HUNTER: Well, it certainly -- I don't believe it's connected
in any regard to the budget.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Well, I just want to make
sure I brought that attention because I see what you're --
MR. HUNTER: Well, I know that the budget is topical; however
-- no, the USA Patriot Act really doesn't affect local law enforcement
in a direct manner. Certainly there are indirect costs that have been
created as a result of Mr. Atta, Mohammad Atta and his confederates
on September 11 th, and those have to do with the inspection and
patrol and protection of critical sites, hospitals, schools, water
facilities, et cetera. But that has all been provided to you as a budget
document, which is a separate issue and item. I don't believe there's
any attachment whatsoever.
May I address the first comment, or is that -- was it posed as a
question pertaining to civil liberties and the balance of --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, it was pertaining to civil
liberties, what I feel strongly about.
MR. HUNTER: Yes, sir. And I think we all feel that way. I
certainly -- actually, I get searched every time I go through an airport
because usually I -- because of the connections here in Naples and
Fort Myers to the rest of the state and the nation. Typically it's listed
as a one-way ticket. And that's one of TSA's, Transportation Safety
26
June 8, 2004
Administration's, triggers to cause a search. So regardless of the
credentials that I'm carrying, I always get searched.
Nonetheless, let me, if I may, speak for the record. The courts
have continuously held -- the Supreme Court of the United States has
continuously held that there is no pure right here. There's a balance in
our laws between individual freedoms and the need to protect society.
And clearly and consistently the courts have tried to weigh that
balance between the need for our freedom and the need for protection.
Perhaps Senator Dashell said it best from the congressional
record, quote, this reflects the balance -- he's speaking of the USA
Patriot Act -- this reflects the balance between protection of civil
liberties and privacy with the need for greater law enforcement, end
quote. And Senator Biden, democrat from Delaware, stated the
agreement reached on the USA Patriot Act has satisfied me that these
provisions will not upset the balance between strong law enforcement
and protection of our valued civil liberties. This bill is not perfect. No
one here claims it embodies all the answers to the question of how
best to fight terrorism. But I am confident that by updating our
surveillance .Jaws, by taking terrorism as seriously as we do organized
crime, which already has these provisions, and by recognizing the
important role state and local law enforcement has to play in this
campaign, that we are taking a step in the right direction by passing
this bill today, end quote. Senator Biden, congressional record of
October 25th, 2001.
I think that Congress has already considered this careful balance
between constitutional provisions and rights and liberties and the need
for very aggressive law enforcement against a very powerful and very
-- and a brilliant foe.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sheriff Hunter, if you've ever
seen Commissioner Halas dressed up in western wear, you would
understand why he gets searched.
27
June 8, 2004
The concern -- there is a lot of concern about eroding of freedom.
And I really understand the reason why the Patriot Act was enacted.
But I still have concerns about eroding of freedom. And for us to give
our blessing, unconditional blessing, I don't think is proper. What I
would like to do is see that the Congress and the President at least
certify the need of the Patriot Act and the particular items in the
Patriot Act every other year, you know. So, you know, if we get our
freedom back quicker without undue burdens of our travel, I think
would be serving the public of Collier County.
MR. HUNTER: May I respond to that, Madam Chair?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
MR. HUNTER: I certainly share the concerns as already voiced
by Commissioner Halas as well, this balance, this careful balance of
liberty and enforcement of law. I don't have the resolution in front of
me, but a careful reading of it would demonstrate that your concerns
have been carefully constructed and included in that resolution,
Commissioner Henning, which it simply states, and I'm paraphrasing
from the resolution, that inasmuch as the USA Patriot Act has not
been successfully challenged nor really challenged except in
emotional presentations before similar boards and councils throughout
the country, and in a very limited number of jurisdictions, I might add,
about 300 of them in the whole United States of America. But
inasmuch as it has not been successfully challenged in the courts, that
should be taken into consideration when we address this issue and
when we discuss this issue pertaining to this act.
It further states in the resolution that however, should there be a
successful constitutional challenge to some element of the law, just as
in your county ordinances, it does not void the entire law, it simply
takes that piece of it away and we amend that piece. That's what that
resolution says, that just as in your county ordinance and every one of
your county ordinances, if you read them, that a particular successful
challenge to any element of your ordinance will not void the
28
June 8, 2004
remainder. And that's all that that says.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sheriff, I don't think anybody
would disagree that certain freedoms that we once enjoyed are not
there anymore. The only thing I'm saying is hey, let's take a look and
see if there is a true need for all the elements or the act itself. That's
the only thing I'm saying is let's just put something in there.
MR. HUNTER: I don't believe we're saying anything different.
The Congress is going to debate this nonetheless. Regardless of what
you do today, we will be debating the act again. And it will come
before the Congress. What this simply says is it's set for sunset, for
destruction, for removal, for abandonment, and we in law enforcement
do not believe it should be abandoned. And that is the value and the
weight of that resolution, simply to say let's debate it. And any part of
that law that is judged to be unconstitutional, let's amend that or
rescind that portion, but don't simply void the entire act.
Most of this act, the USA Patriot Act, existed prior to 2001. All
that -- all that the USA Patriot Act does in general is to coalesce all of
those various U.S. public laws into a single.
Act. F or instance, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and
the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Court, which reviews all search
warrants used in intelligence gathering, existed since 1978. Those are
the FISA courts that you hear so much about which the American
Civil Liberty Union protests so much in the act. Well, those existed
since 1978. This simply moves it into one act so it's more easily read.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, we have Commissioner Coyle,
Coletta and Halas on board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's go back for a moment to the
reason for all of this. Just a few years ago a group of terrorists who
had come into the United States illegally, who had lived in our
country while they planned the murder of 3,000 men, women and
children, had learned how to manipulate our system and escape
detection. It is they who have taken our freedoms, not our lawr
29
June 8, 2004
enforcement agencies. We have an obligation to do everything we can
to prevent terrorist attacks in the United States. There is no question
but what our lives changed on September the 11 th, 2001. It is not
going to be any better for a long, long time, because there are people
who want to kill you and us and we have to do everything we can to
stop them.
Now, if the attack on the WorId Trade Center were the last attack
that we could ever expect, then it would be reasonable perhaps to start
loosening some of the controls and intelligence gathering capabilities
that we now have. But we all know that that is not the last attack. I
think we know that the next attack will probably be larger and be more
devastating. It is likely to include nuclear or biological attacks. And
those are very difficult to defend against unless we have extraordinary
intelligence gathering capabilities.
So I would urge the commissioners to put aside the emotionalism
and the politics of this issue and ask yourself a question. If we had
had more stringent intelligence gathering and law enforcement
capabilities before 9/11, would we not have had a better chance of
stopping those attacks? And I think Sheriff Hunter will tell you yes,
we would have had a better chance, because a number of those
terrorists were right here in Florida. Some of them had been stopped
by law enforcement officers for traffic violations and they did not
have the capability to detect or detennine their legal immigration
status. Had they been able to do that, they would have apprehended
and perhaps stopped the attacks on the W orId Trade Center and the
Pentagon.
So we have to ask our question -- ourselves a question now.
What are we going to do to prevent the next attack against the United
States? Are we going to engage in political dialogue and worry about
the fact that we have to be searched when we board an airplane? Or
are we going to get serious about this process and make sure that we
find the people who are planning these attacks against innocent men
30
June 8, 2004
and women in the United States?
I for one am very happy when I go to an airport and I see people
being screened. I feel safer. I don't think I've given up anything, I
think I've gained something. And I think I've gained some protection
from my government, and if I know that they have the ability to track
people who are here illegally, who are exploiting our system to do us
harm, then I'm going to feel a lot better. Because it's not going to get
better for us, safer for us, if we start loosening the controls that we
have on the people who are trying to do us harm. There is a process
for resolving any infringement of liberty of any innocent individual,
and we have courts that will deal with that, we have elected leaders
who will deed with that. And I feel confident that those will be dealt
with if and when they occur. I am very reluctant to see us relax our
vigilance merely because we perceive some loss of freedom.
So Madam Chair, I would like to encourage the commission to
support this resolution and to authorize the Chair to send a copy of the
resolution to Governor Bush and President Bush.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's a motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I second that motion. And I have
three commissioners waiting. I'll be the first to take that privilege.
And I have to say that I set off an alarm every time I go in an airport
because I have a titanium knee, and I'm happy to go through the
search because it makes me confident that everybody else that's setting
off that alarm is also going to be searched. And I want to know that
when I get on that airplane, I get off safely. Not only that, I want to
know that my children are safe. We have a heightened alert right now
for this summer. We've all been told that there are terrorist alerts out
there that are very dangerous. I want to know that our guys are out
there protecting us and taking care -- listen in all you, please, because
I want to be safe when this is all through. So I totally agree with you.
Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner Halas.
31
June 8, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I'll be honest with
you, I'm seeing this from a little different perspective. One, what's the
reason why it came forward? Because of a letter we all received from
a lady that's entrenched in the Democratic Party who was trying to
make a political issue of this some weeks ago. And that seemed to get
this whole thing fired up to the point where it is today. There are
concerns over there with this particular act the way it's put together.
Necessary? Probably it was at the time there. Is it going to be
necessary in the future? Who knows.
The thing is is that a blanket endorsement is something that could
raise problems. My concern now is, is that if we're to bring this
forward and we're going to vote on it, what's the message we're going
to send if some of us aren't in agreement with it as it's worded? Our
fellow commissioners in Lee County have gone through the same
thing just recently. And at that point in time they had before them a
resolution more or less condemning the Patriot Act, and the
commissioners very justly came out and said, you know, that it was
not something that they were going to condemn. But let me give you
a little background on them so maybe it might help us in our guidance,
if I may.
In that meeting that took place in Lee County, the staff
recommendations were that the board members should address the
issue related to the U.S. Patriot Act on an individual rather than a
formal collective basis. No formal position need be taken by the
board respect to the U.S. Patriot Act by resolution or otherwise to
affirm the county's commitment to the fair and or impartial application
of the constitution and laws of the United States and the State of
Florida. Each of you have previously taken an oath of office to do this
during your respective terms of office.
However, and in the alternate is the board's judgment that it is the
best interest of the county and the citizens that such action reflecting
the majority opinion of the citizens of the county, the board as a policy
32
June 8, 2004
matter must consider the adopting the U.S. Patriot Act resolution as
proposed by members of the Lee County Libertarian Party and the
Florida ACLU on October 14th, 2003.
Well, it went on with their recommendations, but the whole thing
ended up within instead of an endorsement of the -- endorsement or a
denial of support for the Patriot Act, the Lee County Commission
came up with a letter that they sent on to Bush and the United States
Senate and the United States House of Representatives. And it reads:
Dear public servants, there's been much debate, discussion and
dissension concerning the Patriot Act. We realize the Patriot Act was
passed immediately following the September 11 th attack so as to keep
America secure and safe. We understand it is the federal government's
responsibility to fight global terrorism and keep American citizens
free from harm. We have, however, concerns deeply with the details
of the Patriot Act. Weare concerned that some of the actual words
and implications of the Patriot Act might actually violate some of the
bills of rights. Weare specifically concerned with the possible
violations of privacy, violations of private property, secret courts, and
lack of habeas corpus in general. Weare concerned about shadowy,
unchallenged police states. The scenario of Big Brother in 1984 could
be chilling. We know that all of you are trying your best to both
protect us and keep us free. We believe this can be done without
violating basic tenets of our bill of rights.
We are humbly but passionately asking you as public servants
and as protectors of the United States Constitution to please make sure
the Patriot Act is true to our constitution and if it's not, change
immediately those provisions of the Patriot Act that violate our
historical freedoms and civil liberties.
Now, I don't know where this is going, but I'll tell you one thing,
I personally support our President Bush, and I personally support our
efforts overseas, and I do support what we have done in Afghanistan.
And I don't think there's any question of that. However, I too have
33
June 8, 2004
some concerns. Not so much the security in the airport. I don't think
that's a big deal. It's one of those things I came to accept and I too feel
a certain amount of comfort with it.
I think this is something maybe that would be a regular agenda
item at another meeting where we can really get into it and have a
detailed explanation for the whole act, read the whole thing from
beginning to end and have a true understanding of what we're voting
on.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've listened to my fellow
commissioners, and I have some very mixed emotions here. Three
thousand people were lost in the September 11th, 2001. And it
amazes me that the country was only united in a short period of time.
It also amazes me that Congress did not declare an Act of War on this
country when that happened.
Here we are today going into a presidential election, and we
probably got 40 percent of the country that's divided against where we
-- where our stand is in fighting terrorism. It really upsets me that we
as a united country, a free country, cannot get together and understand
that we have evil forces out there. And I understand where we're
going with this Patriot Act, but I also would like to see a full-fledged
push to annihilate the evil people so that we, the free people of the
United States, can get back to our normal day of life, and to me that's
the most important thing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I agree with you,
Commissioner Halas, and I would hope that you would join me in
supporting this Patriot Act as a way of annihilating those people who
would hope to do us harm.
And to address Commissioner Henning's -- I'm sorry,
34
June 8, 2004
Commissioner Coletta's concerns, I would draw your attention to the
resolution which says that we support this act and we support
amending those parts that may be found through the process to be
contrary to constitutional considerations. In other words, we are
saying that we understand and we want amendments that are found to
-- amendments to the Patriot Act that are found to be contrary to our
basic freedoms. And that is a part of the law. And there is a process
to accomplish that. And that's what we're saying, let's not put our
guard down, let's stay strong and vigilant, but when we find that this
act violates individual liberties, it should be amended. And that's what
this resolution is saying. That's what it says. And we encourage __
we're encouraging Congress to do that. If there is an infringement of
individual liberties, or if there's an unintended consequence, that it
should be amended. But so far we have not seen any . We talk about
potential problems. We have not identified any.
These are emotional reactions, and I'm as concerned about
individual liberties as anybody else. And I believe that we have a
system of government that is strong enough and fair enough to deal
with unintended consequences of any law, just as we must here when
we pass laws locally.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, counting the votes,
Commissioner Coyle, I'm not sure if you're going to get support. I
have concerns that you're not going to get total support. So I would
hope that you would consider a friendly amendment to the resolution
and just after the part that you read, constitutional, if it __ contrary to
constitutional considerations, that it be amended. After that, I would
hope that we can do and urge Congress to recertify the act in 2006.
And that way it's not a act that goes on before a time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I don't think it can go on. I
think it's going to have to be recertified, the law.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's asking -- it says here
35
June 8, 2004
that it's a rejection, sunset rejection __
MR. HUNTER: Of the current one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Of the current one, right. And
we -- and I'm in favor of that. Let's reject that, but let's just __ in two
more years from now let's say let's revisit the issue and see if it's truly
needed, parts of it or in whole.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have any problem with that
process. I think the Congress will do it anyway. But--
MR. HUNTER: I believe so as well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I think that's the way they
pretty much set it up. But if that's what it takes to get approval of this
process, I would be happy to accept that amendment.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. You know, we're talking about our
freedoms here and something that we all value, and our guys are over
there fighting for right now are our freedoms. It's also what the
terrorists count on are our freedom, because it gives them the freedom
to plan to hurt us.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess I'll just sum it up and say
that I have concerns about the ability of people prying around into my
private life or anybody else's. But I also would like to think that the
thing that we ought to do is send a resolution to Congress and say we
want everybody in Congress to support the President of the United
States, whoever that is, and I feel strongly for President Bush and I
think that we really need to have an effort that everybody in this
country gets behind the President of the United States, he's the
commander in chief: and to make sure that our fighting men, whether
it's in Iraq or whether it's in Afghanistan or any other place that's a hot
spot in the world, and we need to make sure that we show total
support for the effort that they're putting into making sure that we
have the freedoms that we have in this country today.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, I have a motion on the floor by
36
June 8, 2004
Commissioner Coyle with an amendment by Commissioner Henning
that is accepted by Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And a second by Commissioner Fiala,
who also accepts the amendment. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, I have a 4-1, with Commissioner
Halas opposed.
MR. MUDD: Just to make -- just to make sure for the record that
we've got it clarified, and the amendment to the motion is to add a
recommendation that the Congress reevaluate __
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Recertify.
MR. MUDD: Recertify the Patriot Act of 2006.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd. And thank you,
Sheriff Hunter.
MR. HUNTER: May I make one comment? Well, first, my
thanks for the support of the act. And of course I didn't create the act.
I am a law enforcement officer, I have an interest, naturally. And
things have changed here even in this community. In 1962, when I
came here, you could leave your doors open, you didn't have to lock
your cars, they would be exactly where you left them the night before.
You'd go to the store, you didn't have to lock your home. Those
things have gone, we don't have those anymore, and we could only
talk about them as a matter of history.
The same thing has happened as of 2001. But I can assure you of
37
---"""'-'-"""""'-_0
June 8, 2004
this, me and all of my kind throughout this country, we haven't been
changed by the USA Patriot Act. We're still the careful law
enforcement officers that you had yesterday and the day before and on
September 10th, 2001. We haven't suddenly become rogues or in any
way abandoned the constitution. We defend the constitution. I'm
simply saying as a careful -- my careful reading of what the USA
Patriot Act constitutes simply convinces me, it persuades me that it's a
good thing in general, and that those parts that are found to be
inconsistent with the constitution should in fact be amended. And I
demand that because we want proper guidance in the enforcement of
law that is proper law. We don't like bad law any more than you do.
And I think we're all saying the same thing here today, and
remarkably I think we're saying the same thing as the ACLU other
than I don't believe we should abandon the entire act, we should
simply amend those parts that are found to be unconstitutional. And I
believe that the board has taken that step today and I thank: you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And to wind this up, Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just one brief comment concerning
the budget, Sheriff Hunter. It is my belief that without the intelligence
gathering capabilities and the cooperation that is demanded by the
Patriot Act between law enforcement agencies at federal and state
level, you would be faced with substantially higher cost to provide us
the same level of protection here.
MR. HUNTER: That's a very important observation. Yes, sir,
that's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I just wanted to make sure that
that statement was made.
MR. HUNTER: That is correct. The reverse of what was stated
previously, that the act actually costs us, it actually reduces our costs,
yes, SIr.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much, Sheriff Hunter.
38
June 8, 2004
We really appreciate you being here and all that you do to protect all
of us. Thank you.
And now we move on to Item 7(A), which is an item __ I'm
sorry?
MR. MUDD: This item requires that all particip __ Ms. Filson,
how many speakers do we have?
MS. FILSON: Twenty-three.
MR. MUDD; Madam Chair, I would tell you, you nonnally
break at 10:30. You probably, instead of having it. halfway in there
and taking a break and missing the context, that you do that break now
and then we're able to sit through the entire process with all the
comments at one time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. We will take a 10-minute
break. Actually, a 12-minute break. We'll be back here 10 __ let's see,
10:25.
(A recess was taken.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats. Madam Chair, you have a hot mic.
Item #7 A
RESOLUTION 2004-199 (DENYING PETITION): CU-2003-AR-
4003 APOSTOLIC ASSEMBLY OF THE FAITH IN CHRIST
JESUS, INC. REPRESENTED BY TERRANCE KEPPLE, OF
KEPPLE ENGINEERING, INC. REPRESENTED CONDITIONAL
USE #1 OF THE "E" ZONING DISTRICT, TO ALLOW A
"CHURCH OR OTHER PLACE OF WORSHIP" FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1235 SAN MARCOS BOULEVARD, IN SECTION
31, TOWNSHIP 49, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
Madam Chair, on our agenda, this would bring us to Item 7,
39
June 8, 2004
which is the Board of Zoning Appeals, and it's item A. This item
requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by commission members.
This item was continued from the May 25th, 2004 BCC meeting
at the petitioner's request. And this is conditional use 2003-AR-4003,
Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus, Inc., represented by
Terrance Kepple of Kepple Engineering, Inc., requesting conditional
use number one of the E zoning district to allow a church or other
place of worship for property located at 1235 San Marcos Boulevard,
in Section 31, Township 49, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 4.86 acres.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
F or ex parte exclosures (sic ), we'll start with Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have received correspondence
from our staff, correspondence from Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Williams,
Mr. Steve Payne, Ms. Clark. I spoke to Mr. John Collins and Mrs.
Collins. I -- also, Commissioners, before -- I guess I need to disclose
this, before the petition was filed, my wife and I put a bid on a piece
of property next door to it. Of course it didn't work out. I drive this
neighborhood at least once a month. I did not talk to the petitioner,
but I did receive a call from the pastor. Received again numerous
correspondence from the neighborhood. That's all.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Commissioner Henning.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have an entire folder of
correspondence and e-mail here. I do not recall having any meetings
with anyone representing the church or the residents. But I do have a
lot of correspondence that is available for review if anybody wishes to
see it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I have much correspondence
40
June 8, 2004
and e-mails in regards to this subject. I haven't had any meetings with
any individuals in regards to this.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I had meetings,
correspondence and calls. And if anyone wishes to see it, I have it in
my folder.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And I haven't had any
meetings that I can recall either, but I have received quite a bit of
correspondence, all in my file. And I was invited to take a trip down
the road to see what it looks like, so I did, and to check the area out.
So I think that that's everything.
May I ask everybody who wishes to speak on this subject please
to stand and be sworn in.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Normally people wishing to
speak have five minutes on the record, but I've had a standing rule
since I've taken over as Chairman this particular year that if there are
10 speakers or more, we limit it to three minutes, that way the day
doesn't go on and on and on. So I would ask that those who wish to
speak would make their speeches concise and within a three-minute
time frame.
And with that, we'll move on to the petitioner.
MR. KEPPLE: Good morning. For the record, Terrance Kepple,
representing the petitioner this morning. I'll make a short presentation,
and then the pastor would like to get up and say a couple words
regarding the project. And then if there's any issues that we can
answer after the public gets up and speak, I'd like to take a moment to
answer any of those issues, if any come up.
The proj ect before you is a conditional use for a church in the
Estates zoning district. The site is located on San Marcos Boulevard,
approximately three-quarters of a mile north of Radio Road, between
Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard.
41
June 8, 2004
A little history on the site. We had an original conditional use
application that was submitted and subsequently approved in 1996 for
this church. At that time, the church had a contract to purchase the
property and after the conditional use the church did proceed and
purchase the property.
There was a lawsuit filed against the county and the church on
the conditional use from one or more of the neighbors. The court
upheld the county's finding of the conditional use approval, which was
-- it was then appealed to the appellate court and the county approval
was upheld at that time also.
Time extensions were filed for this conditional use, during which
time the church was taking donations for the construction of the
church, beginning preliminary plans for the church, the building, as
well as the site plan.
An SDP was filed for the project in late 1999, and the SDP was
approved in February, 2001.
Building permit was also submitted and was ready for pickup
when the petitioner -- when the property owner was informed that the
conditional use had expired and we would have to apply for a new
conditional use. And the building permit itself was only canceled
early this year, in January, I believe it was.
We started this new conditional use close to a year ago, I believe.
Had a couple of meetings with staff trying to find out what process
we needed to go through, not for the conditional use but because the
building permit was in the process and was ready for pickup and
trying to determine what extra steps we would need to take, if any.
During the conditional use application process, we did hold a
neighborhood information meeting with the neighbors. There were
several specific concerns that we had -- I believe we have addressed.
They were concerned about lighting glare from the parking lot. We've
agreed to keep the lights at a maximwn height of 12 feet. They were
concerned that during -- when the church was not in use that kids or
42
June 8, 2004
whoever might come use the parking lot for whatever, to spin donuts
in the parking lot with their cars or have parties. We agreed to put a
gate on the parking lot to prevent -- on the entrance to prevent cars
from entering the parking lot at off hours.
The church has agreed to stucco the building. During that
meeting and subsequently at the planning commission meeting, we
agreed to follow the architectural guidelines within the Land
Development Code for the building.
There were some other stipulations that county staff requested
during the planning commission meeting. We have no objection to
any of those. We weren't going to have a day care, we weren't going
to have any outdoor services. We agreed not to provide any outdoor
recreation areas. Some of the things the neighbors were concerned
about that would impact their area: Noise, people being outside being
-- kids playing outside, you know, adjacent to their properties, things
of that nature. We've agreed to limit those things so services will be
held indoors. We won't have outdoor facilities.
I know there are several neighbors here to speak to this petition.
I wish we could answer and address their concerns. We've done as
much as I believe we can. It's my understanding they just don't want a
church in the neighborhood. And I understand that feeling. They like
their neighborhood as it is.
We're requesting a conditional use for a church. It's a fairly
benign type of facility. We're asking for up to 400 seats at some time.
They currently have 75 parishioners in their church, so it would be a
small church to start and they hope to grow as time goes along.
County staff has reviewed the proj ect and has recommended
denial based on compatibility with the adjacent neighborhood. I
submit that a church is compatible with virtually any residential
neighborhood just by its nature. It needs to be in residential type
neighborhoods, it doesn't need to be in a commercial neighborhood.
You need a quiet setting for a church where people can come and
43
June 8, 2004
worship and people can come and have an enjoyable time, not out in
the -- next to major highways or places where there's a lot of noise and
activity.
The services again will be held indoors. There will be some
additional cars on the road, just due to the nature of it. However, the
services are held on Sunday mornings when normally traffic volumes
are down, so we won't be impacting peak traffic volumes.
The church, through the Land Development Code, is required to
put a sidewalk along their ITontage of the road to help pedestrians pass
by their facility. Landscaping and buffering will be provided on the
site to -- in accordance with the Land Development Code.
And the church would like to be a good neighbor to the neighbors
in the area, and we'd like the opportunity to show that the church can
be a good neighbor and would request your consideration in this
matter. That's all of my comments at this time.
The pastor would like to say a couple of comments. And again,
after the public gets up and speaks, if you have any questions, I'd be
glad to answer them, or if you have any questions now, I'd be glad to
answer them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning, did you have a
question?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, for Mr. Kepple.
MR. KEPPLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Kepple, were you the
professional in the original application?
MR. KEPPLE: I believe it was Nino Spagna that was the __
handled the application for the church.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The traffic counts that you
performed was on San Marcos?
MR. KEPPLE: We did not actually perform any traffic counts
ourselves. We did do a trip generation based off of the ITE trip
manual, but it would have been for San Marcos, yes.
44
June 8, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's where the site is
located, on San Marcos?
MR. KEPPLE: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How many members of the
church or parishioners live within the neighborhood?
MR. KEPPLE: I don't believe any live in the immediate
neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is the closest member of
the church, how far are they?
MR. KEPPLE: I couldn't tell you that. The pastor may be able to
help. But they do draw from the community in general, from Collier
County in general.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How wide is San Marcos?
MR. KEPPLE: The street -- the pavement itself?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. KEPPLE: I haven't measured it specifically. It's either __
between 20 and 24 feet in width, the pavement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any sidewalks?
MR. KEPPLE: There are no sidewalks on it at this time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there -- are you going to
provide water and sewer on-site, public utilities __
MR. KEPPLE: There's no water or sewer in the vicinity. At the
present time we're proposing a well and septic system.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. KEPPLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. To finish your presentation,
you would like the pastor to come up, did you say?
MR. KEPPLE: Yes, I'm finished. If the pastor could come up.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. ALDANA: Good morning. My name is Al Aldana. I'm the
pastor of the church. I would like to say only three things.
First of all, to give you a little bit of the background, in 1996 we
45
June 8, 2004
found two properties before this one which we tried to buy for the
church, but they were not zoned for a church. So then we found this
one, and this one was under the requires of the zoning department,
because it's big enough, the vegetation and everything was under the
code. So we went and bought it.
And what I'm trying to get is I want to apologize to all the
neighbors here, first, because I didn't mean to get in your way. That
wasn't my plan. So I'm sorry about that.
Second of all, when I became a citizen of this great country,
which I am blessed to be a part of it, I went and read a little bit of the
history. I had to. And I found out that back then they used to put a
church first before the community, and then build around the
community. And I was so glad when I found that out. But it seems
like it's -- now it's different. But I still believe that in God we trust as
the seal says back there, and -- so I'm here and I humble before you.
And we have done everything according with the zoning department.
It's been eight years now. I thought it was going to be easier to
building a church, but now I can read a book about it.
So it's been eight long years, and here I am. And all I ask is that
you would consider -- we're not breaking the law, we're not doing
anything against the zoning, we have done everything. They have
asked us to review the planning, make a lot of changes. We have
spent time and money.
So here I am, I just humble before you, and I know you're sitting
there because the same God that I serve is the same God that you
serve. So I just ask you to consider this petition. And may God bless
you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Next we should hear from
staff.
MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, my name is
Kay Deselem. I'm a principal planner with the zoning and land
development review section.
46
June 8, 2004
And you do have the staff report and the executive summary in
rront of you. As already noted, staff is recommending denial of this,
and our denial is based on a finding of inconsistency with the Growth
Management Plan. And that's based on four criteria that you find in
the staff report that are required to be reviewed before someone, the
board, can support and approve a conditional use. And staff is asking
that you look at the things that we have raised.
We believe that the first item references consistency with the
Growth Management Plan and compliance with the LDC. And in the
staff report, you will see a reference to the conditional use definition,
and in that conditional use definition it talks about the appropriateness
and about the location within the neighborhood. And staff does
believe that this particular conditional use has a potential for negative
impacts in that neighborhood.
As far as the Growth Management Plan consistency finding,
Policy 5.4 requires this particular project, as well as any other, be
compatible with the neighborhood. Staff believes that it is not
compatible with the neighborhood.
And it goes on, the other criteria is dealing with ingress and
egress and pedestrian and vehicle safety.
Approval of this church at this location would cause traffic from
that church to go through an existing residential neighborhood. As one
of the planning practices that is known throughout the planning
community, it is not appropriate to send nonresidential traffic into and
through a residential neighborhood. In this particular situation, you
can see on the aerial photographs that you had in the staff report, and I
can provide them on the visualizer if you need them as well, there is
no way out of San Marcos. You go in from Radio Road and you have
to go back out. There is no connecting or interconnecting roadway
that can be utilized by the church traffic. It has to use San Marcos and
it has to go through the area nearest Radio Road, which is a heavy
concentration of residential uses and mobile home configurations.
47
^".""-.-..--
June 8, 2004
There's a lot of children. As already noted, the roadway is somewhat
narrow. There are no sidewalks.
Which brings you to the next criteria, which is the effect on the
neighborhood. There are several items that this particular section
references: Noise, glare, economics and odor effects. In this
particular instance, staff believes the potential for noise that would
emanate from the church could have a negative impact on the
neighborhood.
As noted in the traffic analysis discussion that Mr. Kepple
referenced, their trips generate on Sunday morning for the church
service in this particular facility, and unfortunately that's when the
neighbors are home, that's when the people that live here are home.
So although the generation effect of traffic in the normal sense when
we talk about rush hour traffic isn't necessarily the situation here, it is
that traffic that will have the biggest effect on the neighbors.
Additionally, churches normally have evening activities. Again, that's
when the neighbors are home and that's when they can have the most
effect on the neighbors.
Which brings it down to the next and last item that you see in the
staff report, which is compatibility, which is one of the four criteria.
It's not the only criteria staff recognized. And it's one of timing in this
instance. As noted, eight years ago a conditional use was approved
for this site for a church. There were numerous extensions requested
for that conditional use. There was an SDP granted. That SDP has
expired. The conditional uses have expired. That's why we're here
today, because they're seeking a new conditional use and they'll need
to seek a new SD P approval.
Staff contention is that like noted in the staff report as part of the
review of the original conditional use, it was a matter of timing and
the fact that the neighborhood at that time was not developed to the
extent that it is now it may have been appropriate then. However, now
there are numerous single-family homes that have cropped up in the
48
June 8, 2004
area. In the staff report it notes that the adjacent tract to the south is
undeveloped. Since that staff report was written, there is a house
being constructed here. There is a house immediately adjacent to that
to the south being constructed. There is a brand new home to the
north of the church site.
So staff believes that this particular area has changed. The
character of the neighborhood is different than it was eight years ago,
and that conditional use is no longer appropriate at this location;
therefore, it's inconsistent with the compo plan because of its
inconsistency with Policy 5.4; therefore, it should not be approved,
and staff is recommending denial.
If you have any questions, I'd be happy to address them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why has it taken this long for them
to build a church? Seemed to me that if they would have started in
1996, it would have been a lot cheaper for them and they wouldn't be
involved in a dispute with the neighborhood because at that time I
don't think that neighborhood was fully developed. It's nowhere's near
what it is today; is that correct?
MS. DESELEM: That's correct. As I just noted, there are
several homes that have gone up in the neighborhood since __ in just
the last few years.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And it's already been established
by Commissioner Henning asking a question to the petitioner there
that the road is only 24 feet, which is almost inadequate to handle 400
members of that church. It would seem to me that this alone would
have a great impact on the people there.
And how many times has this been extended? I think 1996, '97,
'98, '99 and then finally it ended at February, 2003. And now they
want to try to reestablish the conditional use again; is that correct?
MS. DESELEM: That's roughly -- yeah, there were two
extensions to the conditional use and then they got the SDP approved.
49
June 8, 2004
And that has also expired.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, they start off in '96 and then
they had an extension in '97 and then another extension in '98; is that
correct?
MS. DESELEM: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And then it came back then
for another approval in '99.
MS. DESELEM: That was for the SDP approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, that was the S -- okay, I stand
corrected on that.
And there's no sidewalks in this area and there's no
interconnectivity with any of the roads; is that __
MS. DESELEM: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Halas.
Thank you, Kay.
I'm going to ask all the commissioners to hold their questions,
please, until after we hear rrom the speakers so that we can __ oh, yes?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I could speed this up a bit.
After the public speakers, I'm going to make a motion to deny the
petition for the staff findings of not consistent with the Growth
Management Plan. And their -- the inrrastructure in this
neighborhood, I have -- even if it was consistent, I would have real
concerns about the infrastructure not being there, not just because of
the compatibility issues, but the safety of the residents.
But I do believe there are areas in Collier County, and I believe
there's existing churches within Golden Gate that are not being
utilized that the community would welcome. You don't have to come
to the Board of Commissioners for approval there, the approval's
already there. It's a developed neighborhood with a church on __ in the
community.
And I just would like to ask the rest of the commissioners how
50
June 8, 2004
they feel about --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Henning, I'll second
that, your motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: After we close the public
hearing?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So, you know, Commissioner, if
anybody wants to talk us out of that motion, maybe they ought to
come forward and let us know why we should reconsider that motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So what you're saying to those who wish
to speak is that you are already planning to deny and you're going to
make a motion to that effect after hearing all the speakers, and
Commissioner Halas said he would be doing that as well. So you're
saying in effect that if these speakers would like to just pass, knowing
where you're coming fTom, or make their speech even a little bit
shorter, that would be acceptable.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or waive their time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Call the first speaker, please.
MS. FILSON: Mary Ramos. She will be followed by __ and I
believe it's William Hauck.
MS. RAMOS: My name is Mary Ramos. I'm the one who's
building a brand new home on IOl5 San Marco Boulevard. My
concerns this morning were traffic, my privacy, and the reason why I
built my home there. My home -- actually I bought the property nine
years ago. I was holding off on building my home because of the
church issue. But when I found out the church wasn't going to build
because of course my husband works for Collier County property
appraisers, we've actually been checking on to find out what the status
was. When we found out the status, we decided to go ahead and sell
our other home and build our dream home. Right now hopefully my
home will be completed within the next couple of months. And then
51
June 8, 2004
the concerns with the church again.
My father is a pastor. And I know, I was raised in a church and I
understand concerns. My concern is I wanted to get away from the
church area because of the traffic. I don't want to have to be living
next door to the church, because it's not only Sunday mornings, it's
Sunday night, it's Wednesday nights, it's ladies night prayer meetings.
I just don't want to be in that area and also my dream home being
there. And I spent all this money to develop my home. And again,
I'm not against the church. I just did not buy this property to have a
church right next door to me.
And I just -- that's all I really wanted to say is that I am
concerned about it and I just don't want a church being built right there
after I spent all that money to build my home. And I understand if
anybody else was to build and put yourself in my situation, you
wouldn't want to build your house right next to a church. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: William Hauck. He will be followed by Mildred
Bosch.
MR. HAUCK: Hi, my name's William Hauck. My wife, Mary
Ramos, we're building a house just south of the proposed church area.
I bought this property about nine years ago and thinking that, you
know, it's quiet, there's no traffic back in there. Except for the mobile
home park right when you come on San Marcos Boulevard, which is
-- there's enough going on in that intersection anyway. And if the
church goes there, you know, you're going to have cars going up and
down, just like Mary said. Sundays, Wednesdays, Fridays.
And also, there's an issue of value. When -- if I was to go look for
a piece of property there and there was a church there and there was
all this traffic moving in and out, I would probably not buy there, just
because of that reason. Nobody wants to live by a lot of traffic, of
course. You know, it's hard not to in Naples. But it's in a little estate
area not too many people know about, it's quiet, and that's why Mary
and I bought there. But that's basically all I have to say. Thank you.
52
June 8, 2004
MS. FILSON: Mildred Bosch. She will be followed by Helen
Hartman.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Helen was unable to make it.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Steven Payne?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, if! could just say, if
anybody wants to talk us out of the denial, please come forward. But
otherwise, you can waive your time and get on to your business.
MS. BOSCH: Well, I just want to say a couple of things. First
of all, my name is Mildred Bosch. Good morning.
I'm listening to all that's going on and I'm looking at Miami all
over again. The rezoning of this, the rezoning of that, and before you
know it, you rezone an area that's only supposed to be for one little
thing, and it extends to bigger and bigger.
I live right on Radio Road. I have two homes and I have a
property on White Boulevard. My two homes are adult communities,
one is on Sunny Acres and the other one, I just moved to Windjammer
Village, but consequently I have both homes. The traffic is
horrendous.
First of all, we agreed with building Livingston Road to divert
the traffic away from us. Well, we've got more traffic now because of
Livingston Road. I love it, I use it also. But I believe that if we go on
to build -- to okay the zoning for a church in that area, it would bring a
lot more people. It's just the beginning. I was raised in Miami since
1947. I'm also a United States citizen, 1955. I am an immigrant. I
saw what happened. And unfortunately I am seeing it all over again.
Please, do not approve anywhere where it will cause anymore
heartache to the community. Like you said, Golden Gate City has a lot
of churches. But in an area where people have built their homes for
quiet reasons, I believe that this should be denied. Thank you very
much.
MS. FILSON: Steven Payne. He will be followed by Alise
Guess.
53
June 8, 2004
MR. PAYNE: Good morning. Steven Payne, the face behind the
faxes you all have been receiving from me over the last few months.
And I'm sure, just a moment before I go on, that most of this group
would prefer not to go through this procedure if we had a chance to
corne back if you so-called may approve this like it happened to them
last time. If you can give us this benefit to corne back and __ if you
disapprove. Okay. You understand what I'm saying? If you can give
us some kind of --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We've already had a motion to deny and a
second and we're just -- you know, you can just pass and say that's
fine, because --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If it's any comfort, I'rn not going
-- I'm going to vote along with the commissioner of that district. I
think you probably got a 5 vote here.
MR. PAYNE: Well, I just -- we thought that last time and it
turned out to be the other way around. I mean, there's nothing you can
-- can you give us time, say, if your votes don't go our way we can
come back at you?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Hey, you know, go for it. You
know, I've got all the time in the world.
MR. PAYNE: All right. Well, with that said, I guess we're
going to go on with this. Agreed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're ahead of the game now.
You know, don't shoot yourself in the foot.
MR. PAYNE: Thanks for your time. I'll waive my time then.
MS. FILSON: Alise Guess?
MS. GUESS: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Helene Clark?
MS. CLARK: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Ronnie Bishop? Ronnie and Beverly Bishop.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: They may not be here.
MS. FILSON: James Swanner.
54
June 8, 2004
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He's out of town.
MS. FILSON: George Smith?
MR. SMITH: I'll waive.
MS. FILSON: John Collins? Albert Mench?
MR. MENCH: Waive.
MS. FILSON: John Ford? He'll be followed by Christine Keller.
MS. KELLER: Waive.
MR. FORD: My name is John Ford. I would just like to
comment to the county commissioners for their common sense in
getting to the end of this. And there is one good point to be brought
up about what's going to happen is that the property that they've had
for such a long time has increased in value immensely and so they'll
be able to take that monies and go find a place that they'll be welcome
and get what they need. Thanks.
MS. FILSON: Joe and Shanno Mallard?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Working.
MS. FILSON: Peggy Sanders Dornbusch?
MS. SANDERS: If the records are -- Peggy Sanders, 1228 Mt.
Clair Shores.
We believe -- I believe from the Internet that they have land in
Immokalee, two and a half acres, which has city sewer, city water. So
if they were to sell this land, they could go to Immokalee and try there
and see what that zoning is. I believe it's mobile home. I don't know
what else would happen over there, what they would need for a
conditional use. But on the records I did come up with something
close. The church's name, which possibly is the same pastor and such.
So they do have land where -- and they keep saying they don't have
another site. But that's not been confirmed. So they could sell and
move on.
MS. FILSON: Robert--
MR. BARBUTO: Waive.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sorry?
55
June 8, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now can we change our mind?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Just try it, buddy.
MS. FILSON: Robert Barbuto?
MR. BARBUTO: Waive.
MS. FILSON: James Walsh?
MR. WALSH: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Marilyn Collins?
MS. COLLINS: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Leaane Payne?
MR. PAYNE: I think I'll waive for her, thank you.
MS. FILSON: Jan Barbuto?
MS. BARBUTO: Waive.
MS. FILSON: James Walsh, Jr?
MR. WALSH, JR.: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Scott Keller?
MR. KELLER: Waive.
MS. FILSON: And the final speaker is Dan Payne.
MR. PAYNE: Waive.
MS. FILSON: That's it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, when you close
the public hearing, I will make a motion, with the assistance of the
county attorney.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We've heard rrom the petitioner,
we've heard from staff and we've heard from our speakers. With that I
will close the public hearing.
Commissioner Henning, do you want to __
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I make a motion
to deny, the finding of the fact that it's not consistent with the Growth
Management Plan, particularly 5.4 of the Growth Management Plan
and the criteria for a conditional use.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'll second that.
56
June 8, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor to
deny, with the second by Commissioner Halas.
Yes, County Attorney David Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Commissioner Henning indicated earlier with
his intention to bring forward a motion, one, the incompatibility with
the Growth Management Plan, which he has just rementioned.
Additionally, he talked about the concerns he had about the lack of
inrrastmcture that was in the neighborhood, which you may wish to be
added to the record at this point as part of his consideration.
And I think that that pretty well covers it. It would appear that
his motion at this point in time is based upon not merely the
presentation of the petitioner, the staff, but also taking into account the
additional presentations and statements of the speakers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Did you wish to add that to your motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, to add my motion, it's my
feeling that there's inadequate infrastructure for such a use in this
neighborhood.
And I also would like -- well, after you get a second, I want to
say something.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And my second goes along with
the added infoTI11ation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We'll include the amendment.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, included in the amendment
there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just want everybody to
recognize that people have a right to petition their government, and in
this particular issue they were seeking a conditional use or a zoning
change. And that we never want to lose that right. But this board also
feels public participation is the most important part, as we consider
what we do here is very important. Speaker slips outside are for the
people that want to speak and not for the people that you think might
be here or that are out of town. So we weIcorne speakers. And that's
57
June 8, 2004
all I have to say.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. I have a motion on the floor
by Commissioner Henning that was amended. Would you like to state
that motion one more time?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion to deny based on
staffs findings that it's not consistent with the Growth Management
Plan and that the finding of fact of -- the four findings of facts under
conditional use is not compatible. And then I feel that the
infrastructure in this neighborhood is not sufficient for this type of use.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, and a second by Commissioner
Halas.
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: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that passes with a 5-0.
Thank you for inviting us to your neighborhood, by the way.
Thank you.
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2004-37: ESTABLISHING THE WENTWORTH
ESTATES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (CDD)
PURSUANT TO SECTION 190.055, FLORIDA STATUTES (FS)-
AI2OE.IED W / CHANGEs
58
June 8, 2004
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Item 8, which is
advertised public hearing -- ladies and gentlemen, if you could clear
the room, please, in a rather timely fashion, and try to keep the noise
down.
That brings us to Item 8, which is advertised public hearings.
And it's item A, consider the adoption of an ordinance establishing the
Wentworth Estates community development district, CDD, pursuant
to Section 190.055 of the Florida Statutes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have a presenter here?
MR. SWEAT: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Jason Sweat, comprehensive planning. We're trying to track down our
representative for the petitioner where he was out in the hallway. And
if you would --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to deny.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I've seen him, I think.
Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to deny. Just kidding.
MR. SWEAT: Staff would like to ask the board to consider the
approval of the Wentworth Estates community development district
pursuant to Section 190 of Florida State Statutes. The county staff has
reviewed the testimony, the petition and has met with the
representative of the petitioner, and staff is of the opinion that we
would like to recommend approval for this community development
district.
I would be happy to attempt to field any questions at this time
while waiting for the representative of the petitioner, Hopping, Green
and Sams.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to deny.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That motion dies for a lack of a
second.
And let me say right now that normally I'm totally against a
CDD.
59
June 8, 2004
MR. SWEAT: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I've spoken to the petitioner and I've
discussed my reasons for opposition to any CDD, and that is because
the neighbors are never represented and they don't have a chance to be
represented, even though they're going to be taxed for the first six
years.
The petitioner went back and modified his agreement so that the
first homeowner that buys in there will also be represented and then of
course they will add representation as -- according to our plans here. I
don't know that it's stated that clearly in here, but I felt a great deal of
comfort once I knew that actual residents who will be paying the tax
are also included in the CDD board.
MR. SWEAT: That is correct, Commissioner. And if I'm also
not mistaken, in correspondence between you and the petitioner, I
believe they were to -- this is in your district, they were to cc you on
most if not all of the correspondence related to the CDD regarding the
fees and assessments in that district.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And they did, yes. Yes. Commissioner
Coyle? Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. SWEAT: No, please.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Fiala, this is in your
district. If you feel this meets the needs of your constituents, I would
be happy to second a motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, I will make the motion to approve
this CDD. And I have a second from Commissioner Coyle.
MS. FILSON: Close the public hearing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Pardon me?
MS. FILSON: Close the public hearing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, and with that, I'll close the public
hearing. We don't have any speakers?
MS. FILSON: There are no speakers, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
60
June 8, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Mr. Sweat, since the
petitioner feels that he doesn't need to be here for his petition, I'll ask
you the questions.
Bonding of bonds for infrastructure for this project, how is it
going to be noted to the buyers and future buyers that the bond
obligations are of the CDD?
MR. SWEAT: Well, if I may, Commissioner, I would like to
introduce the petitioner who is now among us, and I would like to
defer that question, please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Welcome. How was your
break?
MR. JOHNSON: It was fine, thank you. I apologize. We
underestimated your previous item.
My name is Jonathan Johnson, 123 South Calhoun Street,
Tallahassee, Florida. I'd be happy to answer your question.
There are a number of ways that those disclosures will happen in
this project and most other CDDs. The first is of course, as required
by Section 190.048, there is language that is mandated by state law
that will appear in each contract for sale of property within the CDD.
Furthermore, similar language will be recorded within 30 days of what
we hope will be your favorable action today over all of the property to
be included within the Wentworth Estates CDD that will be picked up
as an exception to the chain of title so that again each purchaser, in
addition to their sales contract, will have an opportunity to review the
information relating to the CDD.
That recording, in addition to putting purchasers on notice that
their property is included, that there may be assessments in addition to
county taxes, also contains referral information to the Department of
Community Affairs special district information program with a point
of contact to obtain that information.
Finally, contracts for sale within the district will also include
additional language that we have prepared above and beyond the
61
June 8, 2004
disclosures required by state la\v.
And then frankly, one of the other things that you will see in this
project, and this is not atypical of our project, once the district goes
through the financing process, has issued bonds, has imposed
assessments, there is an additional recorded notice specifically relating
to those assessments, the amounts of those assessments, that is more
specific than the more generic notice that will also be recorded over
all of the property.
And then finally, Section 190.009 of the Florida Statutes does
require the district -- and VK Development is well aware of this
requirement -- to undertake additional disclosure by having records
relating to the district, the district's assessments, the district's bonds
available for all purchasers within the project and also on file with the
department of community affairs, again to the extent that any of those
title searches that that department serves as the database and the
contact point for people seeking information.
As your Chairman has noted, we have, agreed and I certainly
want to put it into the record today, to provide I think to try to take an
extra step and go above and beyond to ensure that the homeowners
who are purchasing within the Wentworth Estates CDD will have
information relating to it by inviting a homeowner onto the board
when they do have homeo\vners occupying residences within the
CDD.
We have also agreed to provide copies of the minutes, the audits,
the records of the meetings and the information relating to the
assessments, in addition to keeping them on file in the county and in
our district records. We have also agreed to provide those to
Commissioner Fiala's office so that they are available to the residents
of her district. And I would be happy to answer any other questions
about that.
I did want to, if I could, note for the record, I think you all have
copies of the information we have prefiled. We've done that, and tried
62
June 8, 2004
to do that in a question and answer format and some brief testimony to
hopefully address some of the questions that I think have come up at
previous commission meetings.
I did want to note that we have provided some affidavits dated as
of today, again affirming that all of that information that was prefiled
is true and correct. And we have provided that to Mr. Sweat for the
records of today's hearing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I really thank you for this fresh new
approach. This is a -- I hope that you're the first to lead a new way of
looking at CDDs. And I appreciate all that you've done.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sir, are you saying that the
board of directors will elect a resident to serve on the CDC (sic)
governing board?
MR. JOHNSON: Actually, what we're saying -- in essence, yes,
although the mechanism by which we would do that is that the
landowner, who is initially VK Development and will initially elect
that board on a one-acre, one-vote basis, has agreed that that board,
once elected -- and there will be some period of time before we have
homeowners who will actually begin occupying residences. We have
agreed to take one of those seats when we do have homeowners who
are willing to serve and to offer them one of those seats so that they
would then be placed on the board.
Then, as you probably know, over time, starting six years after
the establishment of the district and assuming we have 250 registered
voters, which I think if we don't we certainly have other problems.
Assuming we meet those two thresholds, then the balance of the board
begins a statutory transition process to turn over control. But yes, we
are agreeing to invite a homeowner onto that board once we have
people residing in the project --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: As a voting member? As a voting
member?
63
June 8, 2004
MR. JOHNSON: Yes, ma'am, one of the five statutory members,
that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, you're going to invite a
resident as soon as he moves into the CDD to sit on the board?
MR. JOHNSON: As soon as we do have people residing in
homes within the project, yes. I mean, we certainly -- we can't twist
their affi1 and make them if the first resident is not willing, but we
have said we will make that offer as soon as we have people moving
into homes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, you stated that you would
notify the people within the CDD that they may be assessed. They
may be assessed for --
MR. JOHNSON: The language is actually in the statute which
says that there may be assessments in addition to county taxes.
Obviously --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But you can go above and
beyond that, right?
MR. JOHNSON: Yes, obviously there will be assessments. But
we do have to include the required statutory language. But we will
have additional infoffi1ation pertaining specifically to those
assessments included in a notice of assessments that we would record
immediately after the bond issuance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would you consider giving
more detail than may be assessed?
MR. JOHNSON: Absolutely, with one caveat. And I'd be happy
to read into the record the specific language. I would be
uncomfortable in the contracts immediately above the signature block,
modifying that language. I don't think that we can by Florida law.
And that language states: The Wentworth Estates community
development district may impose and levy taxes or assessments or
both taxes and assessments to pay the construction operation and
maintenance costs of certain public facilities. I think that language is
64
June 8, 2004
set by law. However, we have already included in the contracts that
we have prepared, and I will certainly commit to you that we would
keep that there, language that does more affirmatively set out that
there are assessments. And then once those assessments are done,
we'll have information specifically describing what those are, the term
of the bonds, the term of the assessments, the annual amount of those
assessments.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would you have any problem of
the motion maker amended (sic) his motion to include that the CDD
district would inform a person under contract? Inform, you know,
where you're at with the bonds, how much are the bonds and what the
payoff is and all --
MR. JOHNSON: No, we don't have a problem. Frankly, we're
going to be doing that anyway, so I'm happy to agree to that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But if we put it into the
motion as far as the stipulations then, you know, that's it, that's part of
the approval. That's the only reason --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And you're already planning on doing
that. And so Commissioner Henning is saying he wants it stated on
the record as part of the motion. And we're already doing that. But I
will include that in the motion to -- just to make it a part of the record
so that homeowners will be advised of what assessments that they will
be assessed. Okay, that's a part of my motion.
And part of your second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, very good.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, what about the resident
being on the CDD board?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That was already part of it, but I'll make it
agaIn.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's all.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's all right. Let me restate the whole
65
June 8, 2004
motion so then we have one clear motion.
I make a motion to approve the CDD with the caveat that they
will have one resident as a voting member of the CDD board, and that
the future buyers in the CDD development will be advised of what
assessments they will incur.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that -- the second by Commissioner
Coyle.
Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The material within our packet,
can we correct the spelling of Fort Myers, Florida for Steven Morrison
and Chris Hagan?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure, yes. I think we should do that. I
noticed that, too. It kind of stood out. Yeah. It says M-E- Y-E-R-S in
both cases. Okay, we'll correct that.
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.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. That passes with a 5-0.
Thank you.
MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.
Item #8B
RESOLUTION 2004-200 - PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE 2003
66
June 8, 2004
CYCLE 1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS _
APPROVED AND/OR APPROVED W/ CHANGES (CP-2002-2,
CP-2003-1, CP-2003-2, CPSP-2003-3, CPSP-2003-10, CPSP-2003-
11, CPSP-2003-12, CPSP-2003-13, CPSP-2003-14, CPSP-2003-15,
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Item 8(B), which
is a public hearing for the 2003 Cycle One Growth Plan amendments.
And this is the transmittal hearing.
Mr. David Weeks and Mr. Stan Litsinger will present. And I
think Marti's here, Marti Chumbler's here and everybody else is going
to present on this one.
But the way we're going to run this is he'll go -- there's a series of
items. He'll go through each item. I'd ask you to either approve or
disapprove on each item and then at the end then we'll have a motion
for the entire packet. So this way we'll move along in a stepwise
manner as far as the particular items are concerned, and we'll know
ahead of time if there's problems with the particular item. And this
way it won't get blended into a motion at the end and after two hours,
when we're finished with this item, you won't be thinking about the
second item that you looked at and what you actually said or what you
approved or didn't approve or who didn't nod or whatnot. I think it
helps along as we move through with this process.
Mr. Weeks?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Might I add that maybe next time when
we do one of these things that we include in each numbering system
everything about that, rather than having to go through and reading it
from staff and then reading it from planning commission and then
reading comments? I found it very difficult to follow with it all
dispersed throughout that whole big stack of paperwork.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And might I add, Commissioner,
also, we're presented with this large document here that we had to
67
June 8, 2004
spend many, many hours on. So anything that you could do to help
alleviate all this paperwork would be greatly appreciated.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I like the paperwork. I like the
details.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, you really do.
Go ahead, David.
MR. WEEKS: Good morning. For the record, I'm David Weeks,
chief planner in the comprehensive planning department. And I'll
jump right in and respond to your comments.
We'll do everything we can to try to make it less confusing to
you. We've used different formats, and we respect your criticism, and
we've been criticized by the planning commission as well. We've
made changes.
Let me say one thing: As we go through these amendments
today, I would ask you to use the notebook that we gave to you
separately, the one that has all the binder tabs on it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This big one?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir.
And the very second tab is labeled CCPC recommendations.
That document shows in a strike-through/underline format the
recommendations of staff and the planning commission. Our purpose
for doing that was to try to put all in one place so that you could see
the actual language as being recommended by staff and then also at
the same time be able to see where the planning commission deviated
from staffs recommendation, so you would not have to flip back and
forth.
Absolutely, you're right, Commissioners, that if you want to see
what the petitioner proposed, you would have to go back to their
original application because there's no convenient way to show three
different versions there. Once you get into shading and single and
double underlines, it gets such a mess that you just can't read what's in
front of you.
68
June 8, 2004
So again, I would urge you to use that second tab, CCPC
recommendations, to see where there's been again differences between
planning commission and staff recommendations. And as staff makes
the various presentations for the private -- excuse me, for the
county-initiated amendments, that is the document we will refer to
again for -- hopefully for ease of following along and seeing the
recommendations.
A couple of quick overviews, comments, and then we'll get into
the individual staff and public petition presentations.
First of all, certainly we recognize your protocol. The first four
petitions today are private sector amendments. Therefore, the
petitioner will make the presentation first, then followed by staffs
brief presentation and of course responding to questions.
As the county manager said, this is a transmittal hearing, so
you're not taking any final action today, unless you take action not to
transmit. That in effect is the denial and that particular petition will be
done. Otherwise, it will be sent -- transmitted to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs and some other state and regional
agencies for their review and response in what is called an ORC
report, objections, recommendations and comments. That's where the
state agency identifies any concerns that they have regarding
compliance with Florida statutes.
And once that report is received, the county then has 60 days in
which to respond to that report in whatever way we deem appropriate,
which might mean changing some of our language that we propose or
it might mean gathering additional data and analysis to support our
position and as for why the language should not be changed. Then it
would come to you for adoption; that is your final action on these plan
amendments.
This is a legislative action, not quasi-judicial; therefore, you are
not required to disclose any ex parte communication nor do
participants have to be sworn in.
69
June 8, 2004
And Commissioners, I think that's enough. We'll go right into the
individual petition.
The very first one is Petition CP-2002-2. That's a carryover from
a couple of years ago because the rural fringe area in which this
property is located was still subj ect to the final order when this
petition was submitted, and that had yet been resolved. So it's been
waiting in the basket for a while, and I'm sure the petitiòner is glad to
finally be getting this far. So again we would defer to the petitioner to
present first and then staff will be ready with our own presentation.
MR. NINO: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Ron
Nino, for the record. I represent the Basik Development Company,
who have made an application to amend the Comprehensive Plan to
establish the Big Cypress Commerce District on the northwest corner
of East Tamiami Trail and Trinity Place.
The petition would establish the -- this 9.79 acres immediately
east of current C-4 and C-5, TTRVC and industrial zoning, all of
which is owned by the Basik Development Company.
On the current -- on this C-4 district, we currently have an
approved SDP for about 85,000 square foot retail development. And
the C-5 largely is the parking lot that would support that, and is
illustrated on this map here. This is the commerce -- the retail center.
We call it a flea market. And this is the -- the parking lot in support of
that.
The Basiks currently have four industrial buildings located on
one-half of the industrial land that they own. They still have
additional room for expansion. And there currently is under review a
site development plan for about a 1 50-unit TTRVC park.
The proposal would ask that we be allowed to develop 75,000
square feet of commercial development on the 9.7 acres of land. I
would have you appreciate that that is much lower intensity than other
applications than are on your agenda today. That amounts to 7,500
square feet per acre. A rule of thumb that has oftentimes been used in
70
June 8, 2004
applications is 10,000 square feet per acre. So that we are
considerably below the threshold that is typically requested of you.
Our application is structured to try to avoid the appearance that
we're speculatively dealing with this property. And to that extent we
have committed that the Basik Development Company would not be
able to start construction on any part of the 9.7 acres until in fact
40,000 square feet, or one-half of the current C-5; C-4 zoning
commerce center is in place.
We have committed that only 25,000 square feet of our 75,000
square feet would be used for uses that are not an expansion of the flea
market commercial center. You know, a flea market today is really
nothing more than a mini mall, and I would not like you to think that
there's any negative connotation in the notion of a flea market. You'd
be surprised how many people in this country find that that is an ideal
shopping environment for them.
Your staff -- that's about the details of what our application is
about. Your staff has recommended approval of this petition. And we
suggest to you that obviously staff found our economic analysis and
justification analysis for the amendment to be satisfactory and have
thus recommended approval.
This matter went to the planning commission recently and the
planning commission failed to make a recommendation. Four
members of the planning commission voted in opposition, four voted
in favor of it. Quite frankly, we were surprised by that outcome
because we believe that the four negative votes were based on
opposition from the Conservancy and from the Audubon Society,
which took us completely by surprise. However, their argument was
one that we have struggled with since that meeting.
Their position -- and I'm sure they're going to speak to it in far
more detail than I, but essentially the proposition, it says that all land
within the receiving area, all land within -- all land within the blue
areas, the receiving areas in the mixed use -- rural agricultural and
71
June 8, 2004
mixed use district has to be used for residential purposes because it is
only the residential uses that drive the TDR program that's going to
bring under public ownership or preserve all of the land in the sending
areas.
Your Comprehensive Plan as currently structured says that
TDR's do not apply to projects of less than 40 acres in size. The
property that we're dealing with, not only does it not qualify for the
TDR program because it's not a residential project, but if it were, it's
less than 10 acres in size and would not qualify.
The suggestion -- there's some suggestion, well, perhaps in the
future all of the five-acre ranchettes that line Trinity Place are going to
be aggregated into a minimum 40 acres or greater properties, in our
opinion is simply unrealistic. If you look at those properties, you
know, people went there because they wanted open space, they
wanted -- they're people that tend to have a lot of accessory
acquisitions, including trucks. And in many instances, many people
who live in the rural area tend to be people that are in the construction
business, and oftentimes that activity is conducted from those
properties.
Nevertheless, having said that, lest you not support or decide not
to support this petition because of that concern relative to the impact
on the TDR program, you know, the Basiks have considered that
condition and have said look it, we will at least replace -- we will
agree to buy 10 acres of land within the sending area for having taken
10 acres out of residential development and put it into a commercial
development.
So we did want to lay that on the table and would accept that as a
condition to the subdistrict conditions that we would be more than
happy to meet at the time of a rezoning application.
Your staff has basically said this property should in the long run
be used for a commercial purpose. That's why you have a favorable
recommendation. This land, I suggest to you -- and no prudent person
72
June 8, 2004
looking for a residential location would want to live on the northwest
corridor of Trinity Place and Tamiami Trail next to an 85,000 square
foot commercial center, next to an R V product, immediately west of
that a junkyard and the Krehling -- and a concrete batch-making plant.
That is not the kind of environment that's going to encourage
residential uses at a one-unit per acre threshold, as is contemplated by
the TDR -- by the transfer of development rights, TDR process.
I would appreciate your support of this petition. We are prepared
to speak to the issue of offsetting the TDR loss that allegedly may
occur here. However, we don't think that in reality that should apply
here, but we are concerned about the impact that it will have on our
petition and are prepared to discuss that issue further.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I could ask a couple of
questions.
I too, just like the planning commission, have concerns over the
dilution of TDRs and credits and possible more intrusions inside of the
receiving areas by such ventures that eventually we'll get to the point
where the TDR credits out there for the people in those sending lands
that are much banking on the fact that they got value will be lost. And
I appreciate the fact that you're coming up with the offer to buy two
credits, is that what you're saying?
MR. NINO: That would -- technically I believe that would
equate with two credits but perhaps by __
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words, you're talking
acre for acre. I'd like to hear from staff on this because I figured a
little bit more than two credits, something like about six or eight, but if
maybe staff might have some comments on it.
MR. HEATH: For the record, I'm Glenn Heath with your
comprehensive planning department.
On the issue of credits, I think Mr. Nino's proposal was to
purchase 10 acres that would equate to two TDR credits.
73
June 8, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If that was to be used for
residential, as we so determine; in other words, I believe there was
separations between the residential units that were going to be going
in -- I mean the conceptual villages or cities, and there was going to be
green areas, there was going to be a whole bunch of other things, if
that acreage that they're talking about, how many residential units
would normally have gone in there under our TDR program?
MR. HEATH: On the acreage that they're -- or for the
commercial development?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir.
MR. REA TH: It's roughly -- the proposed commercial
development -- well, the proposed subdistrict is roughly 10 acres.
How many acres was the -- was the remainder? How many acres was
the existing commercial?
MR. MUDD: 9.9 acres is what's on the sign.
MR. HEATH: Well, it's roughly 9.8 acres. That's actually one __
right now without the TDR program, because that normally wouldn't
be subject to the TDR program because it's too small, it would allow
someone to build one unit.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, you're not answering the
question, let me try again. If this was part of a larger unit -- I'm just
trying to -- I'm trying to come up with something that makes total
sense. In other words, we got a whole detailed program put together
that depends upon the selling of TDRs from willing sellers on to
everyone else. Now we're talking about something that might dilute it
and I'm trying to come up with some sort of solution that will buy us
something that's realistic. If that was part of a bigger thing, for the
amount of acreage that's there, how many homes and how many TDRs
could be used to be able to make that work?
MR. HEATH: If this was part of a project that was 40 acres or
more in size, which is the lower limit, they can build as much as one
unit per acre if they purchase enough TDR credits. So he could -- in
74
June 8, 2004
this case he could build nine units on it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, and that would require
how many TDRs?
MR. HEATH: Nine -- well, he gets one credit, so it would
require eight credits. He has one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It would require eight credits
and so two is a -- was a generous offer before we got all the facts
together.
Is there any other comments from staff on it? Stan, do you have
anything to comment on? I know we're treading on unknowing (sic)
grounds here but I'll tell you, you never can write something that's so
complete that we can feel safe with it. And I'm starting to feel
threatened by this particular venture.
MR. LITSINGER: Well, Commissioner, I think that the
consideration that David mentioned that this petition has been pending
for some time, actually prior to the TDR program being in effect and
the size of the parcel, if this amendment is not approved, it is unlikely
that this parcel would be subject to either participation receiving
TDRs that would develop from a residential perspective at any rate.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Are we under any obligation to
approve this particular parcel?
MR. LITSINGER: You are under no obligation all to approve a
camp. plan amendment.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, maybe when the time
comes when the petitioner comes back up front again, he might have a
better idea.
Anything that you have to add to this, Mr. Weeks?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, please. Again, for the records, David
Weeks.
Two comments quickly. One is that the options here are not
strictly approve this and allow them to rezone to commercial or they
be limited to residential development. There's the in between. The
75
June 8, 2004
agricultural zoning district and the designation out here of receiving
lands does allow for agricultural uses, it allows for a variety of
conditional uses as well. Just for the record. Because staff has
recommended approval, but you should be aware there's other uses as
well. If you deny them they're not limited to one house, that's my
point.
The other point I wanted to make was part of the rationale for
staffs recommendation of approval is considering the location of the
property. It is adjacent to commercial development on one side and
it's adjacent to a conditional use with a golf course on the other side, a
nonresidential use. Generally we consider a golf course not to be a
very intense use, but nonetheless a non-residential use. And fourth, it's
located on U.S. 41. So part of our rationale was the location.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I don't want to dominate
this conversation, but I am going to ask one more question. Are we
under some obligation to fill this whole receiving area with all sorts of
entities out there, being little clusters here, little clusters there,
viIlages? I thought the idea was to come up with some orderly plan
that's going to be able to still preserve some greenspace and lands
around there. If we open this up, how can we refuse the next person
that comes in because of the fact they're a half mile down the road and
they're very similar?
I need some more guidance on this. I got a feeling that we're
heading down the wrong road.
MR. HEATH: One of staffs justifications in recommending
approval of this amendment was that much of this area is already
developed. Of course, if an aggressive developer were sufficiently
interested in the TDR program to acquire sufficient property in that
area, then they could develop a rural village which would have
residential, institutional, commercial and even coneeivably industrial
components.
If you look at the county's future land use map right now in that
76
June 8, 2004
portion of the -- in that receiving area, you'll see a little rectangle
carved out. That's actually the area around the cement plant. So that
we recognized even during the rural fringe process that there were
existing uses on portions of this area.
The -- the cement plant existence there does call into question
whether the property around it is suitable for residential development.
It is on U.S. 41 corridor. There are some -- there is, as the petitioner
has noted, there is some approved commercial adjacent to the area that
they're requesting for the subdistrict.
The effect of -- only looking at this project, the effect on the TDR
program is very minimal. I understand your concern about whether or
not this sets a precedent. Of course that's something that you folks
have to decide.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But we're under no obligation to
take land that's presently what, agricultural, is it?
MR. HEATH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And turn it into something that's
going to be on a highway that's two-Ianed __
MR. HEATH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- with no intentions to four-lane
it and to already send out a message that we're undermining the
stability of the TDR program.
MR. HEATH: Well, as Mr. Litsinger said, you're under no
obligation to adopt this amendment.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand. I mean, I might be
a little more receptive if the petitioner was willing to set the pace by
taking on eight TDR's, and at that point in time I'd feel that the
program is stable because we're right back to where we were before,
as if it was something residential going in there.
Other than that, I'm really not interested. I think that this is the
wrong direction, the wrong --
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, you have a number of speakers on
77
June 8, 2004
this particular --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I know that. Commissioner Halas is
waving and --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and I'm struggling with this.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me ask you all, it's your district and
so I've let you go on. I asked Commissioner Halas and Commissioner
Coy Ie if you would please wait because we have 14 speakers. We
have --
MS. FILSON: Fifteen.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- fifteen. And I'd like to keep this thing
moving forward.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just his comments might be
important.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Maybe you can--
MR. NINO: It's just that you all appreciate that by the price you
set, eight TDRs is the equivalent of $200,000. You know, the Basik
Development organization is not a major -- you know, they're not a
major landowner. They don't have deep pockets. That is an awfully
large sum of dollars to pay for a project that in the first place doesn't
qualify now. We could accept something more than two but
something less than eight. Would you not consider some happy split
that -- we could even, you know, raise it to four, I mean, but -- four,
that's $100,000. That's a lot of money for a project of this size.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me call on the speakers, if you don't
mind, Ron.
MR. NINO: All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, I'd like to move this forward, if I
may.
MS. FILSON: Bruce Anderson?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Not on this subject, okay. He just shook
his head no, not this subject.
78
June 8, 2004
MS. FILSON: Oh, it said 2003-2.
Brad Cornell? He will be followed by Nicole Ryan.
MR. CORNELL: Good morning, Commissioners. Brad Cornell,
on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society.
This is a really tough inbetween kind of a project. And quite
honestly, I'm not quite sure how to approach it either. I appreciate
what I just heard from Mr. Nino in his offer to buy sending land, TDR
credits, buy land that has TDR credits on it for the purpose of
compensating for the removal of his 9.8 acres from the receiving area
from the program.
And that was the concern that I raised at the planning
commission was that we were carving out from the rural fringe mixed
use district receiving area some land that was intended to be part of
this program.
The problem is, as they've noted, it's too small to be considered
for reception of TDR credits. So they're in a tough spot. It's an
impacted area. The compromise that you're considering seems like a
reasonable road to follow and I applaud the consideration that
Commissioner Coletta and that Mr. Nino, you two are discussing right
now, so I guess I'd like to see that come to some fruition.
And I don't want to see the program blamed for any penalty
because the lot is too small. On the other hand, I don't want to see the
program have a bad precedent set for carving out of it. So the
compromise road that you're following I think is a good one.
What that number is I guess, you know, four sounds like a
reasonable number. It does sound like eight may be asking too much
because of the smallness of this particular project. And the rationale of
it, 10 acres trying to compensate by buying 10 acres or 20 acres in
case of four, would be a reasonable compromise in my opinion. So
those are my thoughts, thank you.
MS. FILSON: Nicole Ryan. She will be followed by Edward
Cassetty .
79
June 8,2004
MS. RYAN: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Nicole Ryan here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
And the Conservancy certainly does appreciate the seemingly unique
nature of this petition that's before you, but our concern has been all
along the potential precedent that this would set through the piecemeal
elimination of parcels from the TDR program. The TDR program was
set up as a whole entire program, and what we don't want to see is that
program being chipped away one petition at a time.
Any decision that you make on this, we would ask that you be
aware of the program in its entirety and what the potential impacts
could be. And to keep in mind, the TDR program was created to have
smart growth and to direct land uses and development into those areas
where it's more appropriate and to set aside the sensitive
environmental areas and to ensure that this project and this Growth
Management Plan amendment does not in any way set a precedent
where someone down the road in another area that would like to do
some sort of small commercial development on receiving area lands
then comes in and asks for some sort of GMP amendment.
I believe that the compromise that has been discussed is a good
idea. The number of credits I would leave up to staff. Eight does
seem to be quite a lot. Perhaps four is the number, but I would leave
that to staff. But I really applaud you for taking a look at this issue
and understanding that even though it's a very small piece of land, it
does potentially have a tremendous impact on the entire TDR
program. So just keep that in mind when you make your decision.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Edward Cassetty. He will be followed by Patricia
Rodinsky.
MR. CASSETTY: My name is Edward Cassetty. I am a
homeowner on Trinity Place. And what my position is on this piece
of property is, okay, if you put like a flea market or whatever it is on
that corner, okay, if you have something on that comer of this impact,
80
June 8, 2004
we don't have any turn lanes on 41 coming down now, and it is a
dangerous intersection there. And if you put that many cars coming in
and out on there, how are we going to be able to come in to go to our
property? That's my first thought on that.
I raise palm trees. I'm semi-retired right now, and this is my __
part of my income. And when I first moved there in 1993, I could go
out at 5:00, 5:00, 6:00 in the morning and I'd hear quail calling. They
cross my yard now, I don't hear anything. Krehling didn't bother me.
Now I know I'm going to hear all kinds of noise in my backyard, car
lights and anything else. I didn't mind Krehling. They can hammer,
they can run concrete trucks, all they want to. I get up early. But now
I know I'm going to have cars rolling up and down the back of me.
He wants to put a road in back of me. He wants to take part of
my right-of-way back there. But I have a deed right here that says that
he can't. He wants to get an easement. He wants to take 15 feet of my
back but he'll fight me in court if he does. All my deed says is I've got
30 feet of right-of-way in my front for Trinity Place.
And I'd prefer that it would stay as residential up there. If
someone wants to put something agricultural, they talk about the
trucks up there. Garcia was there before any of us were. He has
trucks there which he hauls tomatoes off of Six L farms down there,
which that is agricultural.
I used to have a pest control business, which we did lawn
spraying, that was agricultural. I had an occupational license for this
which we sold a year ago. And we did the occupation out of the
property, which we no longer do now, but that was off the property
there.
And now I'm just -- I was a hobbyist on growing of palms but
now I'm doing it as part of my retirement. But basically if you go up
and down the road there, there's little nurseries and things of that
nature. It's what those five acres are actually designed for. And that's
what the people want these properties for. And like you say, the
81
June 8, 2004
greenery, that's what we want out there. And you can't hardly see my
house for the greenery. And that's what I love, I love to see things
grow. And that's what we want out there, we want the peace and
quiet. And that's basically what we want in our neighborhood, and
that's what we want.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Are there mostly homes along Trinity
Place?
MR. CASSETTY: Yes, ma'am, there's no trailers back there
now.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I see.
MR. CASSETTY: The last trailer is gone now.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: They never -- they only mentioned
commercial, they never mentioned the residential. I -- thank you.
MS. FILSON: Patricia Rodinsky? Okay, Paul Rodinsky.
MR. RODINSKY: She had to work.
Madam Chairwoman, Commissioners, my name is Paul
Rodinsky. I live at 11231 Trinity Place. Even though this project has
been taken over a few years ago back after it was foreclosed on, it
seems like it's the same project of a trailer park and this commercial
property .
Most of the residents at Trinity Place have no objection to Mr.
Basik using his property for what he wants, as long as we get the
added -- the protection we need from Mr. Basik. Which we never got
any protection over all the years except for a berm that nobody wants
and a few hedges.
If this thing goes through and you do give -- change this to
cOll1lnercial property, which it won't make any difference to us if we
get the proper protection we need.
We don't need Mr. Basik emptying these cars out onto Trinity
Place where it goes onto a rural highway with a single lane, regardless
if there's turn lanes or not. Nobody wants to get up on a Saturday or a
Sunday morning and wait in a line of traffic to try to get to a stop sign
82
June 8, 2004
to get onto a 60 mile an hour road.
And another thing, Mr. Garcia, the adjacent property to this
10-acre tract that Mr. Basik wants to change, we want -- the people at
Trinity Place would like for them not to have any access or any road
going onto Trinity Place, due that there's an easement on the other side
of this particular property next to Basik Road, which is a 60- foot
easement, the first part of it, which travels into our trailer park.
If Mr. Basik would put up a concrete wall, which we've been
trying to do back for 20 years and which plans were missing from the
courthouse, which I have two sets plans that show this that aren't in
the courthouse that Mr. Mudd had the pleasure of seeing in his office
at a meeting to try to explain to him that we need protection.
Mr. Basik definitely doesn't have enough project -- enough land
for this project. He's using the easements, which takes all of our
privacy away, a buffer zone and some hedges, and our properties are
right there and our houses are there right on the property. We want __
we would like an eight-foot wall, just like was on these plans that I've
had here for almost -- that were missing from the Horseshoe Drive,
two sets of plans that shows a concrete wall from the whole length of
the trailer park going down the center of the easement, going to the
side of Mr. Garcia's property and up to 41 to block the whole complete
project. And positively no road coming onto Trinity Place. It's rural,
agricultural, whatever it is, they shouldn't be allowed that, it's going to
interfere with our street. That Trinity Place is a dead-end street. Why
use Trinity Place when he has the easement already there in place?
Let me just show you this easement.
This is the easement. And his Basik Road. Those are the three __
these three roads, the industrial road and the side of Krehling can be
used. He's been using that now to come into the TTR V and to the
supposedly light industrial area where the Krehling road is. Then next
where you see that little circle and line, that's the Basik Road, that's
two- lane highway coming in from 41 with turn lanes already intact,
83
June 8, 2004
and so does Krehling have turn lanes already intact. And if they
wanted to make another road, they just come down to the easement
road and extend the turn lanes to there, which is on the other side of
Mr. Basik's property, and he wouldn't have -- he wouldn't need to use
Trinity Place and he'd be able to put this eight-foot concrete wall __
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sir, I have to ask you to end, please.
Your time is up. Thank you.
MR. RODINSKY: Okay. Five minutes for my wife that she
wasn't able to stay here for that she came this morning?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. If you'd get to the point, please.
MR. RODINSKY: That is the point, that we have no protection
and no privacy. We don't want to give Mr. Basik the right to use
Trinity Place whatsoever and we'd like, if this thing is passed
commercial property and it's TTRV and he's using the easement
because there's not enough room for the TTRV, then that wall should
go straight up the middle of the easement, let him use the 60 feet off of
41 for his 10-acre tract and wall it in with an eight-foot wall all the
way back, including his TTRV on the one side of Trinity Place.
And that's all I got to say about it. And this is an ongoing thing
for 20 years. Construction has been at least 15 to 16 excavation
licenses and nothing usually ever gets done. But now in the last two
or three years the Basiks have been building those storage buildings.
And all I know is I want protection from this or we don't want it, the
people at Trinity Place.
And if you need a petition, there isn't one person on the street that
wouldn't sign a petition to stop this. But if they get what they need, I
don't see why he can't do his project. But you got to give them the
protection we need and he can't use Trinity Place for this. We'll never
be able to go -- leave our place on a Saturday or on a Sunday. We're
going to look just like the drive-in theater down here. And when we
come down to the end of the street, before we get to the stop sign are
we going to have to wait in that line of traffic to try to get into the line
84
June 8, 2004
of traffic? --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I really have to move on, okay? We've
got so many speakers and we're supposed to be out of here in a
minute, okay?
MS. FILSON: That's the last registered speaker marked on their
slip, unless anyone here would like to speak on this issue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, then I will close the public hearing.
And Glenn, did you have something to say?
MR. HEATH: Yes, ma'am. For the record again, Glenn Heath
with comprehensive planning.
In response to the last speaker's comments, Ms. Student informed
me that a wall would not be appropriate at this point in time for compo
plan level language.
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, Assistant
County Attorney.
This is not a rezone at this time, this is a Comprehensive Plan
amendment. And we don't want to start putting criteria as we would
on a rezone because that's not the purpose. This is more like the
constitution that will govern subsequent land development regulations,
including a rezone, and I just wanted to clarify that for the record. So
certainly any discussion about a wall wouldn't be appropriate at this
juncture but would be at the time of rezone.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have Commissioner Halas and
Commissioner Coyle waiting, and I just wanted to say myself a couple
of the concerns I have.
First of all, we're talking about a two-lane highway here. I've
been beating this drum for so long. I don't know how much more we
can impact this highway before we just break the back of the whole
thing. There's no possibility of widening this two-lane, 60 mile an
hour highway for at least 10 years, and you're talking about residences
here who are trying to use this. And we've got residences all up and
down that corridor already. And I just -- I'm very concerned about
85
June 8, 2004
that.
I'm also concerned about the residential area, that you have
people living all in that area that we haven't even focused on yet, and
I'm concerned with what that's going to do to their neighborhood. So
I'll place that on the record.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Doesn't this abut up to rural fringe
lands?
MR. HEATH: Right now it is in the rural fringe receiving.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what we're trying to do here,
after other commissioners that sat on this dias in years past worked
diligently to establish a rural fringe area, now we're into the point
where we're starting to peck away at this rural fringe; is that correct?
MR. HEATH: In one sense I would have to agree with you, sir.
But as Mr. Weeks indicated earlier, this petition has actually been
sitting waiting since prior to the actual final -- the final order -- well,
not final order but prior to the rural fringe.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It doesn't matter whether it's this
petition or not, the problem is is that we're basically pecking away at
the rural fringe area. And what we're going to do is there's going to be
somebody else that's going to come in down the road and basically
want the same concessions in regards to commercial property. And
being C-5, this tells me that there's a possibility that we could even
have a car dealership out here; is that correct?
MR. HEATH: That would be allowed in C-5, although we
would probably recommend that some of the uses on this piece be
further specified in rezoning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then of course we're trying to
establish a TDR program here also.
MR. HEATH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So to me, I can't really give this
thing support. I'm sorry.
86
June 8, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Commissioner Halas.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I -- I'm not sure how this is
going to go, but I would like to make the observation that we have
rules and ordinances to go by in making decisions like this. With
respect to traffic, we must do a traffic analysis to determine if the
traffic created by the proposed development causes a problem. I don't
think we can just jump to the conclusion that because something is
going to be developed and because it might contribute to an overload
of the road 10 years from now we shouldn't let it happen. That's not
the way the law is written. And the law is written so that you take a
look at the development, you evaluate its impact upon the
infrastructure, and if it overburdens the infrastructure, it can't be done.
But if it doesn't overburden the infrastructure, it logically should be
permitted.
The other issue is with the construction in the rural fringe. There
was certainly no expectation that all development in the rural fringe
would stop the minute that the rural fringe plan was approved. This in
essence is an infilI area that really can't be used for much else. It's not
environmentally sensitive. It's specifically excluded from the TDR
program by size.
I think it is appropriate, however, if we can get concessions to
benefit the TDR program, that's a very appropriate kind of settlement
and agreement on this issue. But to make a decision contrary to the
regulations, to me I think is not appropriate. I think we must let the
regulations guide us in this process. And they say that if it's less than
10 acres, it doesn't apply to the TDR program. If we want to say to
the developer, look, let's try to reach a deal, then I think that's
wonderful. And try to get some reasonable TDRs out of this thing.
But I would encourage the commission, if we're going to
disapprove it, let's cite the ordinance that it violates. Let's cite the
provision of the regulations that we think it does not conform to. And
87
June 8, 2004
as far as I'm concerned, it can go either way. I don't have a vested
interest in this thing one way or the other. But I'm only encouraging
that when we make a decision, that we do so in accordance with the
law.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I was wondering if Mr.
Nino would have a response to what's taking place. Especially I know
we're not supposed to be dealing with the neighbors, but, you know,
they're foremost in our minds at all times.
MR. NINO: Well, first of all let me say that we're dealing with
9.7 acres of land. We're not dealing with the relationships that the
TDR may present to the abutting property owners. I was pleased that
Mr. Rodinsky at least stated that in his opinion he didn't have a
problem with this property being used for commercial purposes. And
we will certainly -- we will certainly deal with the traffic issues at the
proper time, which is at the zoning phase when we will have to do an
exhaustive traffic impact analysis. And indeed, if there is a
concurrency issue, at that time you're not going to be able to approve a
subsequent rezoning of the property.
Relative to our offer, Mr. Litsinger advised me that you really
can't apply TDRs to this specific parcel. However, in response to that,
let me say that the Basiks are agreeable to purchase four TDRs and
give them to the county for the county to do with them as they please.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Hmm.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I might as well just chime in
here. That should be done at rezone, shouldn't it, Mr. Litsinger?
MR. LITSINGER: I just wanted -- staff wanted to make one
comment relative to the direction we may be headed in here relative to
bartering of TDRs, as it's very obvious this particular parcel compo
plan amendment's being judged on a site specific merit, should this
parcel be treated different than its current uses in the receiving areas
for the various reasons that have been stated here today.
88
June 8, 2004
But we appear to be looking at an alternative to help facilitate the
TDR program for a property to be compo plan amendment approved
and then to be followed by a rezone where the TDRs effectively
would be bartered as a result of the negotiation process to approve or
recommend a compo plan amendment.
There is some concern with precedent. The next individual or
specific parcel that comes through the door that's in receiving lands
that would request a compo plan amendment to facilitate a rezone
where there also be an opportunity to barter a TDR contribution, I
guess at this point we will have to establish some sort of a public trust
of TDRs which have been purchased and donated to the county which
then can be applied at the board's discretion through some objective
that we may want to achieve with those TDRs.
But we do have some concern about that particular precedent in
this case as opposed to the merits of the compo plan amendment on its
own, regardless of the location within the receiving lands.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: In support of the concerns of some
of the commissioners, in relation to this, I would like to say that there
is in my mind a real danger of letting these things be picked off in
small parcels one at a time. And I think there is a real danger there,
and I think that if the staff could recommend an appropriate
modification to the program so that we would be assured that the
benefits of the program would not be incrementally decreased over
time by small parcels such as this, then I would certainly feel more
comfortable with it.
I understand that can't be done in this particular submittal, but I
would hate to see us lose a lot of this land because it is slowly
absorbed 9.9 acres at a time. And certainly around this particular area
one could easily make the argument that another nine-acre parcel
should also be carved out and developed for some reason and be
excluded from the TDR program because of the existing zoning and
89
June 8, 2004
uses on this property. And so that could just continue to repeat time
and again through the entire corridor.
So if the staff could at some point in time provide us assurances
as to how they could be dealt with, I would feel more comfortable
with this particular parcel.
MR. HEATH: Again, Glenn Heath with comprehensive
planning.
One option would be to allow this to be transmitted and to direct
staff to work with the petitioner to develop some kind of compromise
with the TDR program.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks. The -- I'm more
inclined to transmit this under the basis that there are plenty of needs
and future needs for commercial in this area. F or one I could see
maybe not so much a -- you're proposing the flea market?
MR. NINO: Flea market expansion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Boat storage, being so
close to Goodland and Marco Island. And I think there's a true need
out there.
So I'm in favor of transmitting and then directing staff to work
out the details of these four TDRs.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, let me see if I understand.
What we're suggesting is transmitting it so that -- let staff work out
the details with the TDRs. We have an offer for four, we asked for
eight. Staff could come up with some regional directions as to what's
happening. The problems with the possible, say seating, of the
commercial entity could be done at the time of zoning and we can
address everything as far as the walls go and be· able to meet the
residents needs and be able to also look at the problems with the road.
And we could actually refuse it at that time, if they can't come across
90
June 8, 2004
with a suitable zoning that -- or changes that will meet the majority of
the needs of the residents in the area. So I think that we're hitting on a
pretty neat mix. Although I'll tell you, I think four is way too low. I
hope when staff sits down that they sharpen that pencil and they look
closer towards the eight number, because we have to protect the
integrity of the program.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Prom my part, I think we would be giving
them false hopes to transfer this, because I feel it's incompatible to the
neighborhood. I just don't think it's the thing to do there, so -- I mean,
you've got residential all around this thing and I think it's going to be a
tremendous problem in that area.
But anyway, so we've all discussed how we feel. Do I have a
motion one way or another?
MS. FILSON: There is a motion.
MR. MUDD: A motion already happened and it's been
seconded.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's Commissioner Henning motioned
and --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Coyle seconded --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle seconded it. Any
further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have -- all those opposed say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
So I have a 3-2 vote on that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me discuss that 3-2 vote. A
3-2 vote can transmit, but a 3-2 vote cannot adopt, which is a little
91
June 8, 2004
concerning to me that we're doing that way. And we ought to consider
before the end of the meeting any motion doesn't carry by a super
majority, that we don't submit. Okay?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In this case, I think we're
looking at some future details to come back to us afterwards. We
don't know what the mixture is going to be. And one of the things that
I like about this is the fact that we can set a precedent for TD Rs and
how they're going to be handled in situations like this. That's the
biggest positive thing of this whole particular agenda item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: If we're setting a precedence, then we're
setting a precedence to pick away at them, nine acres at that time. I
don't think that's a good precedence to set.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm not comfortable with it, and I'm
not comfortable with the idea that we're encroaching in the rural fringe
areas.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What should we be doing in the
rural fringe, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think there should be a
receiving area for TDRs.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You think it just should just be
residential?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And no commercial.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't think in that neck down in
that area of the county, no, I don't think it should be commercial.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Everybody could drive to North
Naples for their --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's enough sarcasm. We have a 3-2
vote on the floor to transmit.
Commissioner Coy Ie, you have one thing to add before we go to
92
June 8, 2004
lunch?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, just a quick thing.
Remember, this property is adjacent to C-4 and C-5. This isn't --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's also adjacent to residential.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I know, but there's also a golf
course just to the southeast of it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And there's also a trailer park to the north
of it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. So we can't assume that it is
incompatible, because all zoning districts are represented there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, that cement plant was there
long before we even started setting up zonings.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. But the C-4 and C-5
that you see on your viewer is property owned by the same developer.
So they are merely asking for a 9. 79-acre parcel to essentially become
consistent with the other property that they own. So I am only arguing
with the fact that it is not compatible, because it certainly is
compatible with property on two sides on it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And not on the other two sides, so we
could --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's a variety on the other side
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Coyle, you're
absolutely right. But then I'm -- you know, I'm concerned about
somebody buying a piece of property down here to the south or
whatever and the same thing happening. That's my concern. But
you're absolutely right what you're saying.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And with that, I'm sorry to
rush you along, but we have to break for lunch. We have a 1 :00 time
certain but it's already -- how about if we make it a 1: 15 time certain,
would that be okay?
Okay, folks, we're going to break from now till 1:15. See you
93
June 8, 2004
then.
(Recess was taken.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats. Madam Chair, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Commissioners, I'd like to ask you to make a motion to continue
the subj ect that we've been on, which is 8(B), until after our time --
our one o'clock time certain.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to continue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion on the floor from Commissioner
Coyle, and a second by --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- 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: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Now we'll go to?
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, that brings us to our time certain of
one o'clock, and it's because we broke a little bit late from the previous
item around 12: 15, 12:20 that we're assembling back right now.
Item #10A
CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST BY THE SHELTER FOR
ABUSED WOMEN TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS TO PROVIDE AN ANNUAL CONTRACT
94
June 8, 2004
AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE OF $100,00 FOR FY 05 -TO
DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE FOR WORKSHOP IN JANUARY-
AEEROVED
This is item 10(A). It's consideration of a request by the Shelter
For Abused Women to the Board of County Commissioners to
provide an annual contract and financial assistance of $100,000 for
FY-'05.
Ms. Marla Ramsey, the interim direc -- the interim administrator
for the Public Services Division, will present.
MS. RAMSEY: Good afternoon. Marla Ramsey for the record.
On May 11 th, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff
to bring back a request from the Shelter For Abused Women to
consider an annual contract and financial assistance of $100,000 for
fiscal year 2005.
Our Florida statute broadly defines the responsibility of the
county government in providing health and welfare programs.
Funding the request for the Shelter For Abused Women is considered
inconsistent with your fiscal year 2005 budget policy of not funding a
non-mandated social service agency.
Staff recommends that the board delay any decision on the
Shelter For Abused Women until policies are reviewed during a
workshop, a non-mandated social service agencies (sic), which is
scheduled for January 21 st, 2005.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have any speakers on this subject?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. We have seven.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Seven speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Let's proceed.
MS. FILSON: Eileen -- I'm sorry. Ellen Siler. She will be
followed by Kathy Herrmann.
MS. SILER: Hi. I'm Ellen Siler, and I'm currently president of
95
June 8, 2004
the Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence and have served on
the Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence Board for over 10
years now, and this is my second round as president. So I've got a
fairly good grasp of what's happening in the rest of the state
concerning this issue.
I also am the CEO of the shelter in Jacksonville and have been
executive director of a smaller rural shelter as well in Clay County, so
I have some awareness of what those counties are doing on this issue.
First I want to say that this is an important issue statewide. It is
one of -- domestic violence is one of Governor Bush's primary
mandates and is very important to him. He demonstrated that during
his State of the State Speech by having the president -- the executive
director of the Florida Coalition sitting right behind him and next to
his wife during his State of the State Speech.
It's also very important to Attorney General Crist, who spoke at
our conference and luncheon recently, and Speaker Byrd and his wife
were also there. It's an issue that is nonpartisan that affects
everybody, and an important issue in this state and in this county.
You have an excellent domestic violence center in your county.
The Shelter For Abused Women is known nationally for what they've
done with their facilities and their programs and what they're able to
do.
They are certified by the State. They've got national point of
light recognition from the President, they have model programs in
Immokalee, and they won a local community foundation Kapnick
award, and they are highly regarded amongst their peers in the state.
They also have the unique responsibility of serving 25 percent of
all Hispanic women in the state, so they have some really -- charges
that are set before them. But I think you know that. I think you know
how wonderful they are because they're here in your· community. And
obviously you know that the issue here is what you do and how it
affects you.
96
June 8, 2004
I know you've done some research about what happens in other
counties, but what I want to point out is that it's showing 89 percent of
counties fund their domestic violence centers, but not all counties have
domestic violence centers. And when we survey the actual centers
themselves -- there are 40 in the state -- and yours is the only one who
is not receiving county funding in the state.
They -- and I can tell you in Clay, when I was in Clay County
and I first went for county funding, they didn't have any precedent for
that, and -- but the way they looked at it was, if this is an essential
service that complements what our police and our law enforcement do
and if we fund this, we can cut down on police having to go back to
the same house over and over again, which is what they found.
It's an essential service to the community. It just happens to be
being provided by a nonprofit, and nonprofits have a history of being
able to do things more cheaply -- I didn't mean to say that -- in a less
expensive way than other entities are able to do. So they found it a
very good use of their money.
Initially they could only fund for 30,000. But since that's all they
could do, they ended up giving us land and waiving all impact fees
and doing the environmental studies and all of that for the building of
the shelter, so they helped us in other ways as well.
In Duval County, I get 31 7,000 in county moneys out of my $3.2
million budget, which is about 10 percent. Some of that is through
special grants, 157,000 of it coming to the commission just like this to
ask for moneys.
It has not impacted my ability to raise other moneys in any way.
In fact, it sends the strong message that this is everyone's problem and
we have to work together to address this issue.
The private and the public sector must work together, and your
support on this issue, which is a critical safety issue to your
communities, will send that strong message that you're not going to
tolerate this in Collier County, and you see this as an issue of public
97
June 8, 2004
safety that needs to be addressed.
I appreciate your support. I have enjoyed being here. You have
a beautiful community. Collier County is known for many things, and
I don't really think you want to be known as the only one who's not
supporting your domestic violence center as a commission.
I thank you very much for your time. I've got like 10 seconds
left, so I'm going to stop there. Thank you. .
MS. FILSON: Kathy Herrmann. She will be followed by Dina
Sewell.
MS. HERRMANN: Good afternoon. In 1995 I came before an
entirely different Board of Commissioners. I stood alone, I didn't have
a sea of purple behind me, and I asked for the same thing that I'm
asking for now. And that commission, who later really embarrassed
this county, many of them, made a decision to stick with a policy that
they set.
You are a different board, you are a different commissioners
(sic), and I'm asking you to change that policy. That was a bad policy
then. We've been patient. For 10 years we've waited. We're asking
you to change that policy that was set by a different board.
There's lots of precedent for giving money to not-for-profits.
You already give money to not-for-profit organizations, RSVP, the
4- H, the Economic Development Council, the David Lawrence
Center. You already operate not-for-profit programs. As we talked
before -- as I mentioned to you before, the Domestic Animal Services,
you built a new shelter with county funds. Veterans Services,
museum, the library, those are not-for-profit kinds of services.
The criteria to decide which kind of social service to fund under
any criteria you would imagine, I can't imagine developing a criteria
where the Shelter For Abused Women And Children did not fit that
criteria. It's essential, lifesaving, public safety. It's a stable program
providing for the emergency needs of vulnerable citizens.
County referrals bring people to our door every day. It's an
98
June 8, 2004
unduplicated service. It's a state-certified program. It is designated,
we are designated by the state to provide this service to Collier
County. And the Shelter For Abused Women meets all of those
cri teria.
Our match that we need to raise for our federal and state dollars
is $475,000. Certainly if you provided some funding to us, it could
help us leverage those funds to get more federal and state dollars.
You're dedicated public servants. I've met with each one of
privately, and you're amazing people. You are the elected
representatives of this community, and it's you who make the public
policy of this community, not the newspaper. It's you who does that.
You need -- it's time to change that old policy. Every day you
evaluate requests, you make decisions on almost a billion dollars of
requests, you make decisions about roads and medians and money to
entice businesses to airports, to the Immokalee Airport, money to
build dog parks and beaches, bringing new businesses into our
community, concerts and events at our public parks. All of those are
good things. I'm not judging any decisions that you make, but there
has to be some balance.
The old commission, that commission that I stood before in 1995,
took compassion out of the decision-making process. It's time to put
the compassion back into your policy. It's time for a new day.
Thousands of supporters sent us here to you to say they want us
to ask you to provide this kind of support and to be compassionate to
the citizens of the community.
You've been very generous and you give lots of proclamations,
and we've been before you for numerous proclamations, and
proclamations are very nice and they're very pleasant, but what we
want now is a policy change, and what our supporters and our
thousands of people who come to us for help want -- need is a policy
change. It's time to act now.
What we want you to do is to direct the staff to start negotiating
99
June 8, 2004
with us on a contract. That contract -- that's going to take a long time
to get it through all of those kinds of details, what kind of reporting
are we going to have to provide, all of that stuff. It's time to remove
the heartlessness of the old policy and it's time to change the policy.
I want to paraphrase in closing two great American citizens. Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr., said, a community repent not only to vitriolic
acts of the bad, but for what the good failed to do.
And President Ronald Reagan said -- and I'm paraphrasing -- I
know in my heart that man is good and that right will eventually
succeed. You know in your hearts that this request is the right thing to
do, and I'm asking you not to delay any longer, but to do it now.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Dina Sewell. She will be -- she'll be followed by
Susan Golden.
MS. SEWELL: Commissioners, thank you for letting me address
you regarding the request from the Shelter For Abused Women And
Children of our community for a contract with Collier County for
$100,000 for essential services that we provide.
My name is Dina Sewell, and I've been a member of the board of
directors for the shelter since 2001.
In 1998, while my husband was interviewing for his present
position, I went to the beach at Vanderbilt Beach Road, and was very
pleased to find the signs from the sheriffs office stating that Collier
County was a domestic violence free zone. That sign, with its
implications, along with the Philhannonic, the arts, the beauty of this
community and its beaches, is part -- was part of the decision that led
to our move.
As a board member, I am responsible for participating in the
development, management and control of the affairs, property and
funds of the organization. Imagine my surprise when I learned that
Collier County is the only county in Florida that does not provide any
funding for its violence shelter.
100
June 8, 2004
I also chair the Social Change Committee, which is charged with
pursuing the third part of our mission, which reads, to advocate for
social change against domestic violence.
Our board authorized this committee to pursue obtaining a
contract with the county based on essential services we provide. This
volunteer committee and shelter staff have interviewed over a couple
of years several professionals in this community trying to understand
why the funding stopped in the early '90s.
The, quote, culture of that commission and the commissioners'
concern regarding the perceived inability amending our profits to
show accountability for the county -- to the county, that is taxpayers'
money, is often mentioned.
Based on the progress that's been made since we moved here
from Wisconsin in '99, I do believe we have quite a different
commISSIon now.
Over 90 percent of all women in national surveys list domestic
violence as one of their major concerns. Women vote.
One in four women is abused at one point in their life. We're
talking about our mothers, our sisters, our daughters, our friends, our
neighbors.
The U.S. Constitution states that it is the primary role of
government to provide for the safety of its citizens. We serve the
citizens of Collier County, the taxpayers of Collier County, those
victimized by violence not kept safe.
In 1874 a social worker in New York City was approached by
concerned neighbors and a landlady regarding an orphan girl named
Mary Ellen. They had witnessed the systematic abuse of this child
that took place over several years. The police could do nothing
without proof of assault.
There were laws to protect any person from assault and battery,
but µo precedent for intervening inside an abused person's home.
The social worker, frustrated, eventually turned to the founder of
101
June 8, 2004
the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. She
reasoned that children were members of the animal kingdom and
could, therefore, be protected under the laws governing the
mistreatment of animals.
Even quote, the common cur, which I believe is dog, had more
rights than Mary Ellen. Mary Ellen was removed and the Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, SPCC, was founded in 1874 as
a consequence.
A hundred and thirty years later, Collier County funds a
Domestic Animal Shelter but not the Shelter For Abused Women And
Children.
Our annual budget is 2.6 million. That means our CEO,
Katherine Herrmann, has to fund-raise over $10,000 a working day to
keep our doors open. She's very good at this.
But she's also exceptional at programming. Obtaining a $100,000
contract would mean that she would have 10 days to develop
programs like coordination of the community responsiveness to
domestic violence, to void duplication of services, outreach to the
more affluent groups in our community.
Domestic violence crosses all socioeconomic barriers; affordable
housing initiatives, which can keep the victim from returning to the
abuser; expanding services in Immokalee to victims of human
trafficking, expanding our dating safety presentations in school,
expanding our conflict resolution program.
Your decision to revisit the policy of funding nonprofits is
commendable. We are, as a board, very supportive of this upcoming
workshop, and I'm willing, as a community volunteer, to give my time
to this effort.
Ken Vinteria (phonetic), gender support of our shelter, shared
that his dream was a sign outside to certify a domestic violence shelter
named the Bowman Torey (phonetic) Home, which reads, all rooms
available. That is the goal of the social change committee and the
102
June 8, 2004
Shelter For Abused Women And Children of our community.
I ask you to vote against the county manager's recommendation.
We'll help encourage, we will as a community, move towards the
promise of that sign that I saw six years, Collier County is a domestic
violence free zone. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Susan Golden. She will be
followed by Lucy Ortiz.
MS. GOLDEN: Good afternoon. Susan Golden. I'm the
secretary of the board for the Shelter F or Abused Women and
Children, and I've been fortunate enough to have been involved with
that organization for approximately five years now.
Part of what I'd like to address today is the ability for the current
commission to direct staff to enter into a contract with the Shelter For
Abused Women And Children in order that we might provide shelter
for families that are in need of emergency service shelter throughout
the community.
As Kathy indicated, there are a number of criteria that could be
developed for any kind of a contract that the Board of County
Commissioners might choose to enter into with a nonprofit
organization. You have contracts with the Economic Development
Council and other groups that provide services in this community, and
we would suggest that amongst the very talented staff both in the
county Human Services Office as well as in the county Housing
Department, there are a number of employees that are familiar with
working with state and federal government funding and some of the
criteria that those types of grants will impose on local nonprofit
organizations.
We believe that the Shelter For Abused Women And Children
does provide a crucial essential service for our citizens who are in a
position where they're not able to temporarily protect themselves.
They need our sheriffs department, the police department, other
entities to intervene until they're able to -- be able to make that move
103
June 8, 2004
into some housing and provide some stability in their life and for the
lives of their children.
So, again, I would urge you to look forward, give some thought
as to where you would like to see Collier County be in 10, 20, or 30
years. I think some of the policies of the past do need to be revisited
from time to time, and I believe that this is one of those.
We are a prev -- we are providing essential lifesaving services. It
is an unduplicated service. There is not another Shelter For Abused
Women And Children within this community. It's the only state
certified shelter in Collier County.
Again, I think one of the things that -- that I would suggest that
the staff have the capabilities of doing is actually developing the
guidelines or parameters in which a contract could be entered into
with a provider of essential services.
Although the county manager's memorandum to you indicated
that there were over 300 nonprofits in this community, I would
venture to guess that there are less than a dozen that are actually
providing life, health, safety kinds of services that are essential
services for maintaining our citizens' welfare, and that is the
responsibility of our local government to provide for the health,
safety, and welfare of its citizens, whether that be safe roadways to
travel or a sheriffs department that is able to provide law enforcement
or other essential services of that nature.
Again, I think that the county staff do have the ability to develop
these guidelines and parameters. It's important, I think, for you to
understand that a percentage of the shelter's board does come from
state and federal funding. And in a typical 12-month period of time,
they are submitting 192 reports to the state or the federal government
in order to have those agencies that provide them with funding be able
to monitor the effectiveness of the contracts and the dollars that are
being utilized by this business organization.
Again, I would urge you to direct your staff today to enter into at
104
June 8, 2004
contract with the shelter at this time. I think it is important that in
January we do workshop this issue, but I think you can utilize this
next six-month period as a time to develop a contract with the shelter,
begin to implement that so that a year from now, if you have
developed parameters that would allow a handful of other
organizations to also petition the board to provide essential services,
you'll have those develop -- those guidelines and parameters in place
at that time. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Lucy Ortiz. She will be followed by Marci
Sanders.
MS. ORTIZ: Hello. Good afternoon, Commissioners. Hi, Mr.
Coletta, Commissioner Coletta.
My name is Lucy Ortiz, and I am the Immokalee counselor
advocate for the Shelter for Abused Women And Children.
We currently have a full-time rural children's advocate and have
added two new bilingual staff this month to better serve our area. We
provided services, last year, for over 600 clients and their children in
our Immokalee outreach office. We provided necessary services to
residents of Collier County. I believe we are saving lives and
empowering our taxpayers in Immokalee.
Commissioners, in July, 2000, I spoke before a Congressional
hearing in Washington, D.C. on behalf of battered immigrant women.
House Bill 3808 passed the following month. It is known as Avila
2000.
Your official website features 37 departments offering services to
the residents of Collier County . We wish to be a partner,
collaborating with you to provide a safe place for all of our taxpayers
to enjoy.
June the 1 st marks the beginning of the official hurricane season.
As you may know, Immokalee has the highest elevation, one of the
highest elevations, in Collier County. It's about 17 feet above sea
level. We could be an island.
105
June 8, 2004
Actually, because no man is an island, according to John Dunn,
we are all affected by each other's actions. Your actions today will
speak volumes for the future of Collier County residents. You can
change that policy that was made during a very different time in
Collier County history.
Thank you for your attention to this very important issue.
MS. FILSON: Marci Sanders. She will be follówed by your
final speaker, Brooke Miller Scranton.
MS. SANDERS: Good afternoon. Thank you for having us
here. I'm Marci Sanders, and I work for the shelter.
One of the joys of my job is the opportunity to go out to the
community and speak to public groups, to civics organizations, to
professional groups, to church groups. I tell them what the shelter
does, how we contribute to the community, and how we help save
lives.
I tell them some of the joys and the sadnesses that we deal with
every day. But without exception, the one thing that I tell them that
always gets a gasp from the audience is when I talk about funding and
I tell them that Collier County does not contribute anything to our
organization and to the work we do for the women and children in this
town.
So I wanted to just point out that it is not 25 or 30 voices you're
hearing here today. It is the whole community. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Brooke Miller Scranton. She's your final speaker.
MS. SCRANTON: Thank you, and this will be very short. My
name is Brooke Miller Scranton. I'm the program director for the
shelter.
I just wanted to say on behalf of the more than 2,000 who signed
the petition that directed us to go before you, we do implore you,
please, help us with this contract. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker.
106
June 8, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's all of the speakers?
Yes, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't believe we should
deviate from our policy, but I do believe that we can provide the
sheriff with a line item within his budget for the women's abused
shelter until we discuss this issue in the future at a workshop, and let --
because it is a health, safety, and welfare, and it deals with the state
statute with domestic -- that deals with domestic violence, is, let's put
it in the sheriffs budget, just a line item in the sheriffs budget.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe it's already there because
the sheriff, as has been stated earlier, there's times when there's cases
of domestic violence -- in fact, I've read it in the newspaper myself,
whereby no matter what spouse is involved in it, they end up in jail.
And so I feel that the safety and welfare is already being
addressed by the sheriffs department. I believe it's already in his
budget, or it should be with the amount of -- what his budget entails
here.
So I feel the same way as Commissioner Henning does on this
subject.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, we have decided to have a
workshop on the policy in January of next year. It seems that the only
decision that we need to make here today is whether we change the
policy now or we have the workshop in January and make a decision
as to whether or not we change the policy. Is that a fair assessment of
where we are right now?
MS. RAMSEY: Yes, I believe that's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate the fact that we're
finally getting around to this subject. There is needs out there. There's
107
June 8, 2004
a lot of real needs. And I'll tell you something, Collier County is way
behind the -- way behind the rest of the counties in Florida as far as
meeting some of the very basic needs we have out there.
I'm not saying that we need a policy that encompasses
everything, but I think the women's shelter is a very good example of
one of those very few agencies out there that, at a point in time, should
be receiving something from the county to be able to meet the very
basic needs.
They're perfol111ing actually a governmental service. We heard it
-- we heard it mentioned that the sheriffs department is doing this or
should be doing it. Well, that's still a government entity doing a
particular service.
But there's other ones out there, too. I tell you what, I'm really
looking forward to that workshop when it comes up. I know we're
going to have a deluge of people coming in here. And I'm going to be
honest with you, the majority of them don't deserve it. They don't fall
under what I would consider the health, safety, and welfare, the
making -- meeting the very basics needs of health care, clothing, food,
and shelter. You know, but there's a number of them that deserve
some sort of consideration, and I'm going to be looking very much
forward to the workshop.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioners, your pleasure?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I say let's have a line item in the
sheriffs budget of $100,000 for the -- to go to the women's abuse
shelter.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second? That's a motion; is
that correct?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second to that motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a question .--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- or a clarification.
108
June 8, 2004
Where does the $100,000 come from?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Our budget.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: General revenue?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What's the difference between
giving $100,000 to the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sheriff.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- to the sheriff and gIvIng
$100,000 to the women's shelter?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think that we're going to
find out that there's going to be a lot of requests out there, and it's
really not the Board of Commissioners granting the request. It would
be the sheriff.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Would that imply that we then
make -- ask the sheriff to create a line item for these other social
service agencies, too?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, I think this has been the most
difficult thing for us because we have a group that we all know is
worthwhile, nobody wants to turn their back on them because we all
feel the same way, yet we know that waiting right there, I mean,
waiting outside the doors are more people that want the money, then
we would have to choose who needs -- who serves the most public
purpose, public safety, welfare and so forth, and who doesn't, so then
we would have to choose between the two, and I don't know that we're
capable of doing that right now.
I look forward to the workshop. I know that we need to do that,
and that that way -- and at that point in time, we're going to have a
tough decision. You get some money, you don't get some money.
You're more worthy than the next guy. But I don't know that this is
the right time to choose who is the most worthy and who is not.
Commissioner Coletta?
109
June 8, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're probably right. This
might not be the right time, but I can tell you I would have no problem
identifying who the correct ones would be. We have already done it a
couple of times with the impact fee waiver, and we -- and I personally
was the first one to stand up to people that showed up before us and
told them, no, you're not the person that was intended to receive this,
and we move right forward. It's almost the same criteria. I guess it
has to be defined what that criteria is.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I mean, you can almost
take the abused women's shelter and build it out from there. Then you
would find such organizations as Friendship House.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That just naturally fall into the
place. Maybe Reverend Mallory --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Project Help, who is -- yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yep. And you go through and
you look at the criteria of exactly what's being done, who's being
served and where the money's coming from and where it's going, and
then you can make logical decisions. But I don't think that this is
going to be the place to do it.
But if we open up -- if we open up the door now -- and I wouldn't
have a problem doing it -- but the next entity that comes through the
door and wants to be on a public petition, you've got to give them the
same consideration. As much as I'd like to do something right now
and grease the slides, I think I would -- we'd best wait for the
workshop so we can handle this systematically for the whole system.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It amazes me -- and I understand
that we're one of the few counties that do not contribute to the Shelter
For Abused Women, but it also amazes me, the outpouring of support
by the private sector that gets involved in this.
110
June 8, 2004
And I believe that, as stated here by the women that basically
gave up -- stood up there before us and spoke before us, that this
Shelter For Abused Women is top drawer, and it was all because of
not only their efforts -- I'm sure a lot of blood and sweat and tears
went into it -- but also the fact that the community got behind them.
And I think I'd like to see where we, as a community, work together.
And I think that, to me, this is the direction that we should go.
County Manager there?
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, if I may interject for just a second.
I think that Ms. Herrmann and all the ladies that represent the shelter
asked for direction to staff to work on a contract, to work on those
criteria that you can use during your workshop in order to get that
done.
I don't think that's a futile effort at all. I think that's a very good
effort, and that will set the stage for a very good workshop instead of
having a free-for-all.
I would like to add my endorsement to that recommendation that
the board give staff direction to work on that contract, to work on
those criteria so we can have those in place so that when you do have
a workshop, you can discuss those criteria and, thereby, then you can
have a way to decide in the future if you want to change your policy,
and you'll have some guiding principles to use to determine, if you so
choose, to change the policy, which organizations would be funded
and which organizations wouldn't.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, yeah. We're going to have to choose
-- that is going to be such a tough -- everybody knows the shelter __
my goodness, I've been a supporter of the shelter before the shelter
was there, before Kathy was there, before they had a place to go. And
I used to have to fight for the state local grants just in order to get
some money for the shelter.
But we also are going to have many organizations we have to say
no to because we just -- you know, we can be busily handing it out.
III
June 8, 2004
And my problem with today is -- my problem with today is that as
soon as we say yes -- I can see we all really want to do this. It's all in
our hearts. Everybody's got the heart for this. But immediately when
we --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Three hundred people.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- before we finish this meeting, we're
going to have -- oh, there was the last time, believe me -- before we
finished our board meeting, we had messages waiting like Project
Help who was pleading for help, and Friendship House who was
wanting to go under, and there are so many more. You get into
Salvation Anny, you get into St. Matthew's House, you get into all of
them, and we're going to have to start making these decisions now.
We've already scheduled a workshop. And I'm sorry. I'm taking your
time. You have this --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, you're saying exactly what I
wanted to say.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. And so, as much as I -- as I've
been a supporter, I think it's going to put us in such a bad position
right now for all the other ones that are lining up waiting. And I
mentioned that to a couple of the ladies already. I said, how are we
supposed to now say, okay, you're okay, but we're going to have
everybody else wait, and I don't know that that's a fair thing to do.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I just wanted to echo
what we've been saying. I think what we're hearing from the
commission here -- maybe I'm wrong. But what I'm hearing is
willingness to step away from the present policy and move forward.
But I see the problem is the fact that we don't have a policy to be able
to follow, and that's what we have to do between now -- that time and
the workshop.
To be honest with you, for me the easiest thing to do would be to
see what you've got, and it would make it a little easier to move
112
June 8, 2004
forward to the next one, but I also know the fact that next week there's
going to be somebody else here asking us through public petition to
put it on the agenda, and we wouldn't be able to say no. And it would
be just a bedlam of one agency after another without a policy in place
to be able to deal with it.
But I think there's a sincere interest on the part of this
commission to act accordingly, to come up to the level 'of what other
counties do. And that -- and I thank you very much for bringing this
forward and being persistent. It's because of your persistence that
we're getting there. And I see the smile. You sound like a politician.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But maybe as -- as you begin to work
with the county manager on some guidance toward our workshop so
that we have some of these things in place -- and Kathy, I'm speaking
directly to you -- maybe you can help suggest who you feel --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Suggestion?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- serves the greatest amount of public
safety and welfare and who should go without, because that's going to
be something that's going -- we're going to be needing to discuss. And
maybe as you sit down in these months leading to that, you'll be able
to offer some guidance.
Yes, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just a suggestion. I seem to be
the commissioner that has the social service background that goes all
the way back to 1985. If you'd like, I would be more than happy to
work with the groups and see if I can help channel the thought process
of something --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's great.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- that's going to be constructive
and realistic.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think they ought to leave it up to
staff.
113
June 8, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a real problem. I think
County Manager Mudd can deal with the procedural issues. The thing
we're forgetting here is that there is the potential for substantial
philosophical differences on what is a social service that is deserving
of funding and what is not. And we will have differences about that.
And if one commissioner gets involved in developing those
procedures, it's going to get us into a quagmire, and I think we will
find it difficult to extricate ourselves from it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: He's got a --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And whereas, I subscribe to the old
philosophy that if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If
you teach him to fish, he can feed himself for the rest of his life.
And those are the kinds of philosophical differences that are
going to get us into disagreement on what is and what isn't acceptable
for funding.
So what I would suggest is that we do direct the staff to begin to
develop appropriate criteria. I'm concerned that if we direct the staff
to start developing a contract specifically for one organization, we
then are telegraphing to everyone that, yes, they can get a contract just
like this.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so what -- January isn't that
far away. We're coming up on summer recess. There will just be a
few months before that workshop. We do have a policy right now.
Weare late in the budget cycle. It would seem illogical -- as much as
I would like to fund this effort, it would seem illogical, now at the
very end of the budgeting cycle, for us to go back and change the
fundamental assumptions of the guidance -- the budget guidance
which was established earlier this year.
So I would -- I would make a motion that we provide the staff
guidance to begin developing principles which will help us make a
decision on what agencies are likely, or should receive government
114
June 8, 2004
funding support --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- in preparation for our workshop
in January, then that way we start it out with a new budget guidance --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that is if we elect to change it,
and we'll have a better understanding of the implications of the
decision.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that, Commissioner
Coyle.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coyle.
Do you need to repeat that motion, or is everybody clear on it?
To provide staff with guidance to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Guidance being, individually,
we talk to staff and give them thoughts, or are you going to give them
guidance now?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, let them come up with
something.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They're going to come up with the
guidance. Staffs going to come up with the guidance.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And they'll be working with the shelter
along the way, I'm sure, to offer some -- to get some suggestions here
and there.
MR. MUDD: I'm going to ask Ms. Hemnann to help me a little
bit.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I figured you would.
And your second was to include that; IS that correct,
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coy Ie, and a second by Commissioner Halas to ask
115
June 8, 2004
staff to move forward -- to give guidance to staff to move forward to
prepare for our workshop in January.
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: Okay. And I have a 4-1 vote then, with
Commissioner Henning rej ecting.
Commissioner Henning, before we move on any further, I know
that you have something very urgent to leave for. Is there anything on
this particular agenda that you would like to discuss? I'd be happy to
bring that forward before we move on.
Item #8B CONTINUED FROM EARLIER IN THE MEETING
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. The -- the Golden
Gate Area Master Plan amendments.
I have to -- my mother is very ill, and I need to catch a flight this
afternoon, so I appreciate your consideration.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's fine. We're happy to do that.
So the Golden Gate amendments first?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we just ask --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I just ask a question in view of
Commissioner Henning's concern? With respect to the earlier issue
that you raised about the three votes necessary for transmittal, the four
votes necessary for adoption, since you won't be here for that vote,
116
June 8, 2004
would it be fair for us to assume that if we were to proceed with the
transmittal of this Growth Management Plan as it is with three votes
for that particular item we discussed, that if the staff in the meantime
were able to address the concerns of the other two commissioners who
were dissenting on that vote, then they would have the opportunity
when it returns to make a decision about the adoption?
In other words, Commissioners Halas, if the staff is able to come
up with a Growth Management Plan change that would solve your
concern about this -- the fringe area being piecemealed in small
increments --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's exactly right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- if they could recommend
something that would deal with your concern, and if Commissioner
Fiala's issues of consistency and/or traffic could be dealt with between
now and the time of the adoption hearing, then, perhaps, we could get
four votes; is that a reasonable assumption?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's a reasonable assumption.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Okay. I just -- just wanted
to get that done while Commissioner Henning was here.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And then we can proceed.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- did you want to give a
presentation or you just want to -- I mean, I have some concerns about
some of the things that we're going to transmit are not correct.
MR. HEATH: For the record, Glenn Heath with Comprehensive
Planning staff. I would just like to note that we are using the language
that's in the -- referring to the language that's in the CCPC
recommendations for CPSP-2003-10. There are some --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 2003-10?
MR. HEATH: Yes. It's the -- it's the, I think, the fourth or fifth
page of the CCPC recommendations, fifth page.
117
June 8, 2004
It's -- well, the item starts near the bottom of the page with the
CPSP-2003-10. And I guess as far as a --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Page 5, did you say?
MR. HEATH: Yes, page 5, of the CPS -- I'm sorry, the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: CCPC?
MR. HEATH: Yes, CCPC recommendations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you want to go into my
concerns?
MR. HEATH: However you would like to do it, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- page 20, item 8,
downtown center commercial subdistrict refers to map 10.
MR. HEATH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I find the map to be 18.
MR. HEATH: All right. Let me fix that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Collier Boulevard or --
I'm sorry, page 22, item 8, Collier Boulevard commercial subdistrict, I
find it to be in map 19 and not -- or not map 9, but 19.
MR. HEATH: All right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And also we have two blocks in
there that is zone C-5.
MR. HEATH: Okay. I will note that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I do have some
questions, but what I would like to do on the Collier Boulevard
subdistrict is try to deter retail and the higher uses, such as C-4 and
C-5, because that is not using the zoning that we have for its highest
and best use, and that we're very limited on the higher intensity zoning
in that area.
And what we're doing with the commercial -- downtown
commercial subdistrict is actually providing areas where retail and
offices can go. So there'll be places that they can be directed to do
their businesses.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I had a question. And more, I think, for
118
June 8, 2004
clarification than anything else. They were talking about trying to
encourage the commercial and reduce or eliminate altogether
residential in those particular areas, and then it stated that, unless it
was an owner occupied residence.
I'm wondering -- they were -- they were wanting to discourage
multi-family because obviously multi-family rental would not be
owner-occupied. What about those particular places where it's a
duplex or a four-plex and the owner lives in one of the four and rents
out the other three; does that still qualify as an owner-occupied
residence?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm not even sure if
legally we can say that -- owner-occupied in this subdistrict as far as
residential. I guess I have real concerns about that.
And Commissioner Fiala, to answer your question, there is a lot
of multi-family around that, existing, that would stay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant
county attorney.
The owner-occupied distinction is a carryover from a previous
district. And the reason we made that distinction is because in a
situation of a rental, the person can depreciate the property on their
taxes and recoup their investment. An owner doesn't have that same
opportunity .
So, therefore, to try to obviate any problems with the takings
issue, I feel that we could successfully do that with an adequate
amortization period for rental properties. But for an owner-occupied
property, if we just say, well, you know, you're out of your house and
you have to develop it as commercial now and they can't, we've just
taken their property. So that's the reason behind the distinction.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And there was one
amendment in here, and I think it's in the Pine Ridge subdistrict, and I
couldn't find what -- here it is.
119
June 8, 2004
It starts on page 17, Pine Ridge Road mixed use subdistrict. Are
we adding more commercial to that subdistrict?
MR. HEATH: This amendment, the -- we're not adding any
more to it than has already been added. The previous -- the
amendments that were adopted in September of last year included an
addition of commercial to the subdistrict.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So we're just putting it in
the Golden Gate Master Plan?
MR. HEATH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And I note, talking to
Mark Strain, there is some concerns or considerations that not only the
Golden Gate Area Master Plan Committee wanted to discuss about
conditional use, or model homes, but also the CCPC
recommendations.
MR. HEATH: Yes. If I could clarify. What happened was there
was insufficient time between us having to receive the Planning
Commission recommendations, and we were unable to -- it was too
early to get the transcript of that meeting to make sure that we
incorporated all of the Planning Commission recommendations into
the information that we're bringing before you.
So to a certain extent, I apologize. We've been playing catch-up.
I hope after this morning and discussing with Mr. Strain, discussing
with some other folks and having some chance to go back over the
recommendations, that we've got everything. But it's conceivable that
something has still fallen through the cracks, and it would -- we're
trying to catch it all.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could we have it read into the
record in regards to what has been suggested so that it is on record in
regards to the model homes?
MR. HEATH: All right. Excuse me just one moment while I get
on that page. First off, if you look at the -- where it says the special
exceptions to conditional use locational criteria, those first two
120
June 8, 2004
sentences that --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What page is that on?
MR. MUDD: What page are we on?
MR. HEATH: On the CCPC recommendations, I have page 26
near the bottom.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Oh, yeah. There it is.
Actually it says, conditional use subdistricts, part B.
MR. HEATH: Right, and then it goes on below that to part E. It
may be on the next page on your copy. I'm not sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. That's what it is. It's
on the next page.
MR. HEATH: Where it says special exception to conditional use
locational criteria revised text, the first two sentences where it starts
temporary use, TU, permits for model homes, those were supposed to
be struck out because that's the old language.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And how are they supposed to read?
MR. HEATH: The only difference, in the language below that,
the expanded language below that, is the recommended language,
however, the Planning Commission, which -- one of the things that we
missed earlier was the Planning Commission did define a -- I guess a
total time period for the permit to last. It would be three years as a
temporary use permit and a maximum of two years as a conditional
use permit with a total of five years maximum.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And with no possibility of extending that
after that period of time?
MR. HEATH: After the last conditional use permit, no.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Margie?
MS. STUDENT: I have certain legal issues with the subdistrict
that I presented to the Planning Commission that I'd like to address
here at the beginning. I noted in a revised document that I received
that the amortization period was changed from five to seven years,
which I feel is more in line with what one can do on a depreciation
121
June 8, 2004
schedule for tax purposes.
This material was presented to our office for legal review only
three days before the Planning Commission, so there has not been
sufficient time to, you know, further look into that, but I feel that
seven years is reasonable.
You will also note that there is a prohibition in -- I think it's the --
on signage, billboards in the downtown center commercial subdistrict.
We have an ordinance that already does that, and the sign ordinances
or sign code and part of our land code is going to be revisited and
rewritten, and I feel that that is the appropriate place to address this.
And with some new legislation, it's very complicated. I won't go
into it now, but I have a concern against, what shall I say, resurrecting
this again in the compo plan when we already have this in a land
development code provision that's at least 12 to 13 years old, if not
older.
There's also a prohibition on news racks or limitations that is not
in line with our current ordinance.
Mr. Palmer's away from the office, but I talked to Tom Palmer;
he's our new rack ordinance guru. He said this is not consistent with it
and he feels that it causes or poses significant legal problems for the
county.
So I believe at this juncture, really the news rack limitation
should come out. And quite frankly, that is something, again, that
belongs in a land development code regulation and not in a
comprehensive plan.
And I also note that this even has a provision for removal within
30 days of the effective date of the adoption. It's not appropriate for a
compo plan. It should be in the land development code, if anywhere.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is that two per block, wasn't it, or
something like that?
MS. STUDENT: Yeah, and block is not defined, and it's not
consistent with our ordinance. And our land code is supposed to
122
June 8, 2004
implement the compo plan. The statute says that. And the way this is
written, a lot of this is to be self-implementing.
And so, I really feel that we need -- Mr. Palmer has indicated that
the industry will not hesitate and they're just poised to sue local
governments over this type of issue.
So I feel that it really belongs in the land development code. And
we can, perhaps, put some general language, and if we need to -- not
the land development code, but the news rack ordinance. If we need
to revisit the news rack ordinance, then that's what we should do.
Also there's a provision not to allow sign variances in -- let's see
-- I believe it's the Santa Barbara commercial district. Our land code
as written allows sign variances countywide. And to take a variance
out, that doesn't means the board has to grant a variance, but that
provides a relief for an individual if they just cannot meet the
requirements of the code.
And I think that's another issue that is more gennane to our land
development code since we have that provision in there. So if -- I just
wanted to put these items on the record as concerns.
And I also have another concern, and maybe -- about the
limitation of commercial traffic on public streets -- or local streets in
daylight hours. And two of the subdistricts have this, the Collier
Boulevard commercial subdistrict has it and also the Santa Barbara
commercial subdistrict.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're going to remove that.
MS. STUDENT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because I agree with you. I just
haven't got to all my stuff.
MS. STUDENT: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I do have a concern. I agree
that a lot of this language like is on page 21 (B) -- and it's numbered
down -- that it's -- it belongs in the land code, and that's just one
subdistrict.
123
June 8, 2004
But anyways, talking about the model homes. Limiting it to five
years, you have a concern about the return?
MS. STUDENT: No. This wasn't about model homes. This was
about --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When you first started your
conversation, you were talking about temporary uses of model homes.
MS. STUDENT: Okay. I'm sorry then. I misunderstood. I
thought it was -- the discussion had to do with the amortization period
for owner-occupied as distinguished from rental homes. And a model
home, I'm not --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. STUDENT: -- sure that anybody lives in there, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then I misunderstood.
MS. STUDENT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what is your concern about
the seven-year limitation?
MS. STUDENT: The question I believe Commissioner Fiala
discussed was the distinction between an owner-occupied situation
and the rental situation. And the reason for the distinction was
because in the owner-occupied situation, if for some reason there's a
problem with converting to a commercial use and we tell the person,
well, you can't live there after a certain amount of time, there's a
possibility that we've taken their property.
With the rental property, the individual who owns it has the
opportunity to depreciate that on their taxes and recoup the
investment, and that's the reason for the amortization period. And
also, that was a carryover from the original -- the original subdistrict, I
think, that was approved probably about six or seven years ago.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But to get back to the portion
where we're trying to determine the -- in the Estates about the model
homes, is there anything wrong with that language?
124
June 8, 2004
MS. STUDENT: I don't have a problem with the model home
language.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I think that's where the
distinction was that we wanted to limit the homes to three years
allowed on a temporary model criteria, and then a maximum of two
years under conditional use.
MS. STUDENT: No, that -- I don't have any problem with that
whatsoever.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
MS. STUDENT: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I'm ready to make
a motion, but I don't know if there's any public speakers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, we have. Do we have any public
speakers?
MS. FILSON: I think I have two, and maybe three. Bruce
Anderson. He'll be followed by Wayne Arnold. And Mark, do you
want to speak on this one? And Mark.
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman,
members of the commission. My name is Bruce Anderson, and I
have, I believe, two items to bring to your attention with regard to the
Golden Gate Master Plan.
One is in the staff report, page 13, and it also appears in the
Planning Commission recommendations. That's the -- objective 6.1,
paragraph C. The last sentence in there that says, this roadway shall
not be constructed within or adjacent to the existing east/west canal
right-of-way. That was deleted or recommended to be deleted by the
Planning Commission.
It prejudges the Wilson Boulevard Extension study and takes one
of the possible road alignments out of contention before it's even been
considered, and I would ask you to follow the Planning Commission's
recommendation.
MR. HEATH: We had agreed to make that adjustment at the
125
June 8, 2004
Planning Commission meeting, so we don't have a concern about that.
I do -- the only thing I will say in defense of the language that's
here is that the language in the -- in these amendments was actually
developed before the discussion on the road in association when the
rural fringe amendments took place. So if there's some inconsistency,
then that's why.
But we've agreed with Mr. Anderson that the Planning
Commission has recommended taking that sentence out.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay. The other item that I have, I'll just
bring to your attention, and Mr. Arnold will elaborate on it.
On page 23 of the Planning Commission recommendations under
paragraph -- it's 2(B), and it's the third bullet point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're going to remove all that.
MR. ANDERSON: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's gone.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It belongs in the land code. We
need to discuss that.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Wayne Arnold. He'll be followed by Mark
Strain. '
MR. ARNOLD: Hi. Wayne Arnold. Two points; one, to
elaborate on the point Mr. Anderson raised. There were (sic) a
discrepancy, I think, the Planning Commission version and the version
that's before you, and I think the Planning Commission version was
probably the accurate one that they took action on, and I certainly
endorse that.
And if need be, I can read that into the record. It's a simple
sentence. The Planning Commission version was bullet point 3 of the
same paragraph 2(B) that Mr. Anderson addressed on page 23, and it
reads, the parcels immediately adjacent to commercial zoning within
any neighborhood center may qualify for conditional use under
transitional use provision of the conditional use subdistrict of this
126
June 8, 2004
master plan.
There was some older language that, I think, appears in your
version today that was not endorsed by the Planning Commission.
The second point that I wanted to raise was an issue that we
pointed out at the Planning Commission. I think it was one of those
oversight provisions relating to those parcels of land between I - 7 5 and
Santa Barbara Boulevard. I think there was an oversight to recognize
the urban infill subdistrict that's located on the northwest quadrant of
Santa Barbara and Golden Gate Parkway.
The language you have before you says that there shall be no
further commercial zoning in this corridor, but we had offered that
maybe there should have been an exception language for that infill
subdistrict because you had a commercial zoning application pending
at the time of our discussion with the planning board.
But I would hate to think that that applicant would forever be
forbidden to come back for an amendment which is, in fact, a rezoning
because of that statement, and I think that that would be consistent
with the Planning Commission recommendation to at least write in an
exception for parcels that are in that subdistrict designation. Thank
you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's in the map. That parcel's
in the map, isn't it?
MR. HEATH: Yes, it is. And it was never our -- staff's intent
that the provision that Mr. Arnold is talking about include the
subdistrict on the corner of Santa Barbara and Golden Gate Parkway,
so I don't think staff has a problem with making those changes.
MS. FILSON: Is this the only one you want to speak on?
MR. STRAIN: Yes. Good afternoon.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker on this issue is Mark Strain.
MR. STRAIN: For the record, Mark Strain. . I live in Golden
Gate Estates. About three years ago to the month was when this board
appointed members of the Golden Gate Master Plan Committee, and I
127
June 8, 2004
was privileged to be one of those appointees. We met for two years
about twice a month, and today is the final episode, basically, for that
committee's findings or recommendations to you.
And I'm not here to complain today. I came to -- just to witness
the process finishing out. I want to commend staff, particularly Glenn
Heath and the other staff members that have helped the committee
through all those two years and through this past year ih getting it to
the point we're at today.
I've heard various corrections and changes, and most of those, all,
I believe I've heard are consistent with what we did discuss.
I certainly want to thank all of you very much for the opportunity
that the Golden Gate people have had to address these issues for their
community. It's been a great effort for the community, and we do
sincerely thank you, so thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I had two little questions, one just
a housekeeping item.
On policy 5.2.3, it says, no mew commercial uses. It's just a
spelling. I think you really mean new there.
Secondly, on objective 6.1, and you're talking about the
transportation element here, but I was wondering if there was any type
of a timeline that is supposed to be included, or is that not important --
MR. HEATH: What was your the second -- your second
citation?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 6.1.
MR. HEATH: 6.1. There was no time line intended on that. I
don't think we necessarily have a problem with putting some sort of a
time frame in.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I'd have to defer, actually, to
Commissioner Henning, but I just wanted to know if you wanted
something like that in there or if it didn't make any difference to it
actuall y.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What was the --
128
June 8, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 6.1, and it's talking about the
transportation or the road, and I just -- Vanderbilt Beach Road, and I
just wanted to know if there was any kind of a time line you wanted to
include in there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I would think that our
transportation staff would develop a -- through our long-range plan,
whether it be five, 10, 15 or 25-year, when the needs are.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. SCOTT: A lot of those -- Don Scott, transportation planner.
A lot of those issues will be dealt with over the next 18 months as the
updated long-range plan.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So a timeline isn't needed to be
added here. Thank you very much.
Those were my questions on this particular item.
And now let me close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And Commissioner, I made a
mistake.
Mr. Anderson -- I told Mr. Anderson we're removing language I
guess he had some comments on. It was actually on the previous page
that I wanted to remove and put on -- in the land development code, so
I totally missed what -- his point. So if we can just kind of get a
clarification. I think we're on page 23.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Thank you, Commissioner. I was still
trying to figure that out.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sorry.
MR. ANDERSON: That's all right. The -- it was under Estates
mixed-use district neighborhood centers subdistrict, and it was section
2(B), and it was the third bullet point. I believe it's on page 23 of the
Planning Commission recommendations.
And there is an error on that in that it does not reflect what the
recommendation of the Planning Commission was. The references to
129
June 8, 2004
the specific roadways were all removed as part of the Planning
Commission recommendation, and I would ask you to do the same.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could somebody read that
language in now so we know what it is? Do you have it there with
you, Bruce?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. The representation from the Planning
Commission was, the parcels immediately adjacent to 'the -- within
any neighborhood center may qualify for conditional use under the
transitional use provision of the conditional use subdistrict of this
master plan element, period. Boy, that's a mouthful.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What did that say? What did that really
mean?
MR. ANDERSON: You better hire a lawyer.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Any ideas?
MR. ANDERSON: It refers to another part of the Golden Gate
Master Plan that also has some criteria in it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What is -- what is the criteria?
MR. HEATH: In the Golden Gate Area Master Plan for the
Estates area only, not for Golden Gate City, there is a conditional uses
subdistrict, and the conditional uses subdistrict spells out criteria for
how conditional uses may be placed within Golden Gate Estates.
And one of those concerns is transitional conditional uses
associated with neighborhood centers, and that's the language that Mr.
Anderson would be referring to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that was Planning
Commission's recommendations? Mr. Strain?
MR. STRAIN: It wasn't so much as a recommendation, as that
was the language that was presented to us that we asked be forwarded
on to you. We didn't modify it because what Bruce read was the
language as it w~s presented to us. The language you have in front of
you today was never presented to you in the manner in which it's
being presented to you today.
130
June 8, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mark, give an example where
this would apply.
MR. STRAIN: Anyone of the neighborhood centers in Golden
Gate Estates, like G's General Store. Before you go to the residential
parcels to the north or to the east, you could have a parcel that could
be a transitional conditional use under the criteria within the Golden
Gate Master Plan.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What's a transitional --
MR. STRAIN: It's going from a high intensity commercial use,
before you get to the residential, you have a transitional use that is
generally lesser intensity than the commercial, but maybe greater
intensity than the residential. It kind of slowly blends the two together.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that was discussed at great
lengths in the master plan meetings as well?
MR. STRAIN: Absolutely, it was, yes. Bruce was just reading
you the language that was presented to us. Until today I didn't know
that language had been changed. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is there confusion there?
MR. HEATH: There is -- well, yes and no. I'm uncertain as to
how -- exactly how some of the language that's here is here. But it
was our -- it's staffs general intention that that apply -- that condition
apply to any neighborhood center, so we don't have a problem with
the recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. So--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Close the public hearing?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, I already closed the public hearing,
but I'll do it again just for the record to make sure that the public --
and we have heard all of the speakers and the publio hearing is closed.
Oh, I guess we haven't heard all the public speakers. Meeting's back
open.
131
June 8, 2004
MS. PAYTON: No, you haven't. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did you sign up for it?
MS. PAYTON: I'm signing up now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're supposed to have it in
before we discuss the issue.
MS. PAYTON: I was told by staff that this was being taken out,
and that's why I didn't sign up. But it hasn't been mentioned, so I
wanted to make sure it's being taken out. I was trying to save time.
MS. FILSON: Nancy Payton.
MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton representing the Florida Wildlife
Federation, and it's policy 7.3.1, letter C, maintenance of a road
connection along Everglades Boulevard from Immokalee Road to U.S.
41 which means a road through southern Golden Gate Estates, and
that was our understanding, that all references to that type of roadway
through southern Golden Gate Estates would be eliminated from these
transmittals.
And the other ones were, but this one didn't make it, and I just
want to make sure that it isn't transmitted, because it does violate your
agreement with DEP and the water management district about
southern Golden Gate Estates.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Boy, she would catch that one,
you know.
MS. PAYTON: Caught the others ones, caught this one, but this
one didn't get removed, so I just wanted to make sure it gets removed
before it's transmitted.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may -- may I?
Glenn, was there something else in mind when that thing was left
in there? Is there some road connection like Jane's Scenic Drive or
something?
MR. HEATH: Well, there is a connection now, or there will be
when the water management district is through. And I was -- had this
discussion with Ms. Payton earlier. There will be a connection to
132
June 8, 2004
Jane's, and you could go out to State Road 29. But, of course, that's
not U. S. 41, which is what the language in here says.
Originally in the committee meetings, there was a concern of the
need of an evacuation route of some sort for folks living in the -- I'll
call it the southeastern portion of northern Golden Gate Estates off of
Everglades and DeSoto in that area, and this would provide another
way out.
The -- in the Planning Commission meeting, the emphasis shifted
from going down into southern Golden Gate Estates to having some
sort of an emergency exit onto 1-75. So staff is -- was -- this was just
an oversight that this was left in. And I don't think staff has any
problem with taking the sentence out.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But there's no way that would
apply? I mean, there's no way --
MR. HEATH: Well, I've been told by the water management
district that -- I'm checking on this -- that actually a portion of
Everglades Boulevard in the southern Estates will actually be torn up,
so there won't be a roadway that would go all the way to 41 directly.
MR. MUDD: There isn't a roadway right now that goes to 41
unless it's a dirt one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, no. I know that. I'm just
trying to find one.
MR. HEATH: Oh, it's--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We could--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm not doing very good here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We could four-lane Miller Road.
MS. PAYTON: In your agreement you gave up Miller
Boulevard Extension.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We didn't say anything about an
overpass over the top of the whole thing.
MS. PAYTON: Right. There is a primary road that will be in
post restoration southern Golden Gate Estates, and that road plan is
133
June 8, 2004
attached to your agreement that you signed with the water
management district and the State of Florida, and that primary road is
Everglades Boulevard to Stewart to Jane's Scenic Drive, and so it does
provide some evacuation in terms of fire.
There are repeated letters from Ken Pineau discouraging --
opposed to a hurricane evacuation route through southern Golden Gate
Estates. And I think anybody who thinks of it would not want to put
people in a restored wetland as an escape route from a hurricane. But
it would function in the dry season to escape fires, and that will exist.
There currently is that road and it will be actually improved post
restoration.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can we change the language of
this to agree with where that's going to be?
MR. HEATH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then we at least got it down in
the records that we're thinking ahead and we're doing something.
MR. HEATH: Okay. We will do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And that meets with everyone's
approval?
MS. PAYTON: Well, I haven't actually seen the wording, but I
can comment during the transmittal. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You will.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So now we -- now we will close
the public hearing and proceed from here?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yep. Make a motion to approve
with the recommended amendments with the speakers today, accept
the Planning Commission's recommendations. This is just on the
Golden Gate Area Master Plan, and, of course, the map changes and
blah-blah, blah-blah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understood what he said.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did you? Okay.
134
June 8, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yada, yada, yada. And do I hear a
second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I hear a second from
Commissioner Coletta. So Commissioner Henning has motioned to
approve with all of the changes that were noted on the record during
our discussion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, we -- is it clear that we're
going to remove some of the language -- I flip my page -- in some of
these subdistricts that really belongs -- the discussion that we had,
putting in the land development code?
MR. HEATH: That was what I understood.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. More of the detailed
criteria.
MR. HEATH: And I will be working with Ms. Student to make
sure we get it right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Commissioners, I just --
one of the maps, the area for the redevelopment or the downtown
district, I have concerns that it's too big, but there's a stakeholders
group that is going to discuss all of that stuff, and we'll hash it out
before it gets to adoption.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that might change.
That's okay, Glenn?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That's the map you might have
been referring to before?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the numbering of the
maps are wrong, but -- yeah, it was map --
MR. HEATH: You said it was map 18.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, map 18.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So now let me see if I can repeat
the motion, just to make sure.
135
June 8, 2004
Commissioner Henning has motioned that we approve the
Golden Gate Master Plan for transmittal with the -- with the changes,
amendments, and deletions that have been noted on the record, and
Commissioner Coletta has seconded that motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You left out the blah-blah-blah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the yada, yada, yada.
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.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. That is a 5-0.
We will be breaking at 3:00, by the way.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we go to the issue with
Naples Bay?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, how about doing another continue
on this item, and then go do two items?
Commissioner Henning had two items, one on Naples Bay, and
the other one that he asked to be pulled, along with Commissioner
Coletta, was 16(F)2, so there's two of them that he had a particular
interest.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Make a motion to continue.
MR. MUDD: Continue this item?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Continue--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I second it, 16(F).
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, wait. Thank you. You're talking
about 8(B), making a motion to continue this item until after we
-- after discussion?
136
June 8, 2004
So I have a motion on the floor from Commissioner Coyle to
continue item 8(B) until after further discussion on other items, and a
second by Commissioner Henning.
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: Okay. Very good.
Item #9H
DISCUSSION OF A RESOLUTION AND/OR APPROPRIATE
ACTION TO OPPOSE THE NEWLY PROPOSED STRINGENT
NAPLES BAY SPEED ZONE BY THE NAPLES CITY COUNCIL.
THE AREAS AFFECTED ARE: DOLLAR BAY, NAPLES BAY
AND GORDON PASS - SUGGESTED WORKSHOP LETTER
Now, we go on to -- Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, this is item 9(H), and 9(H) was an add-on
from Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Coletta. It was a
discussion of a resolution and/or appropriate action to oppose the
newly proposed stringent Naples Bay speed zones by the Naples City
Council. The areas affected are Dollar Bay, Naples Bay, and Gordon
Pass.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have anything on this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I got -- you want me to start out
with the discussion?
137
June 8, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure, please do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's a lot of concerns and I
have concerns on how the effected proposed speed limit changes
within Naples Bay, Gordon Pass, and Dollar Bay will affect the
residents of Collier County.
I think it will reach out to -- it's not an effect of the city -- just the
city residents, but also county residents. But I do agree, if there are
safety concerns set through the Florida statutes or thereof, that we
should consider those.
But it's a fact of finding of, you know, is there true safety
concerns, is there true manatee concerns, change the boat (sic). And I
would hope that if they're not legitimized, then the Board of
Commissioners should oppose the changes and carry it through to the
Fish and Wildlife; is that right, Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And I'm going to refer you to a
memorandum that was sent from Mr. Pritt, the city attorney, to the
mayor and the members of the city council. He basically talks about,
this is a response to a memo from Mayor Barnett dated 24 May, 2004,
and it's basically talking about the criteria that the city has to use to
petition the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to set up
markers or speed limits on the particular bay.
And you'll see that the two items, the council may regulate boat
speeds in Naples Bay, Dollar Bay, and Gordon River and other waters
in the city for the following reasons and under the following
restrictions: Safety and welfare and manatee protection.
And the ordinance that was passed doesn't become operative until
the markers are erected. And the Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission, the W --or the FWCC, has a series of criteria that they
basically have to judge.
And in this memorandum, it starts to talk about safety/welfare
criteria, and then on the back page it talks about, along with the safety
and -- continuation of safety and welfare, it talks about the manatee
138
June 8, 2004
protection criteria that they also have to use, and then it basically has
the last bullet under manatees, it says, if the city and the Fish and
Wildlife Commission disagree, a local manatee protection committee
must be formed.
If the board -- if the board has concerns about the -- this
particular ordinance and direction by the city council, then it would
seem, from Mr. Pritt's memorandum to the mayor, that this board's
actions would be some kind of letter of concern to the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Commission as far as the criteria that are used and
satisfaction of those criteria before any markers are placed.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm very concerned by what's
taken place. We're trying to provide more and more recreational --
meet the recreational needs of our county residents and city residents.
We're trying to find more places for people to launch boats, we're
trying to find beach access. And something like this is such a
detriment. It sets back everything by thousands and thousands of
trips.
I mean, it's obvious that many people that have been using the
entrance to Naples Bay to get to the Gulf of Mexico are going to start
to consider other locations, which means that we're going to be
stressed at the other end of the spectrum.
Every other one of our boat launches is going to start to see
considerable pressure just for the simple reason, it's going to take over
an hour to get through Naples Bay with this very slow speed limit.
I don't believe that this is necessary. If I remember correctly
from what I've read in the newspaper, as you can rely on the
newspaper, the articles that quoted the chief of police, they didn't see
any extreme dangers. There was other articles in there from other
agencies that couldn't see any kind of serious problems.
It seems like it's more a movement to just try to restrict traffic
and direct it someplace else than it's one to provide for health, safety,
139
June 8, 2004
and welfare.
Now, there's a possibility I could be wrong, but I'm not getting
that message from everyone I talk to. And I, for one, would like to see
us draft a letter that would express our concerns, and word it in a very
polite and fonnal manner so that we don't over -- really offend our
council members in the City of Naples. But I really would like to see
us enter into this, because it is going to have a direct impact on what
we're offering.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, as I hope all of you know, I
tried very hard in discussions directly with the mayor, with individual
county -- or city council members and with the entire council during a
couple of workshops to try to get them to sit down with us in a
workshop setting to discuss the data upon which a decision was being
based so that the commission would have an understanding of why the
decision was being -- being made.
For whatever reason, the city council chose not to have us -- have
a workshop meeting with us. That is an unfortunate decision that I am
afraid will have unfortunate results. And while I do respect and
appreciate your concerns with dealing with this in a -- in a
professional manner with the city council, I, quite frankly, don't see
any alternative but to ask for clarification and/or oppose the decision
as it has been made.
And while that is my district, I think the only way that I can
represent that district effectively is if I maintain a fair and honest
position with respect to all of the people I represent.
I do not believe that this particular decision has been made in a
way that it takes into consideration all of the people impacted by the
speed limits on the bay, and I'm concerned about it.
But I would like to proceed to resolve it in the most professional
manner we can. And I would hope the city council would agree to sit
down with this commission in a workshop before they have a secondi
140
June 8, 2004
reading of this particular ordinance.
And I've pointed out that there is no urgency here. Most of the
people, many of the people, who use that bay are gone at this time of
the year, and it would appear to me that September would be a
perfectly good time to finalize this thing.
So I would hope that they would be amenable to that sort of
approach. But I would, again, hope that we can -- we can resolve it
without worsening the communication between the county and the
city.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas, and then we have a
speaker.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Coyle, can you
enlighten me a little bit -- since this is your district -- what is the
driving force on this?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's hard for me to say, because I've
heard the testimony of the people who are responsible for enforcing
the laws in the bay. I haven't heard of any great safety issues there,
although I'll tell you on the bay it gets scary from time to time. There
have not been a lot of accidents on the bay. And if there were, those
issues could be resolved through enforcement.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do they have enforcement there on
weekends?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There are marine patrols there from
several different levels, and not only the city, but the county and the
state. Perhaps the enforcement isn't as tough as we'd like to see.
There is a concern about water quality in the bay. But as the
policy that was just shown to us from Mr. Pritt, water quality is not a
justification for reduced speed limits. If you'll see that last -- last note
on that letter.
So I am puzzled, except that I do know that there are people who
have been agitating for reduced speed limits for a long time. There's
potential property damage from high wakes with boats going at high
141
June 8, 2004
speed down Naples Bay, and the wakes cause potential damage of
people's homes or seawalls or riprap or boats.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So is it a geographical problem; do
you think?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, if you want to consider that
the geography goes all the way from Dollar Bay, south of Gordon
Pass all the way to the northern reaches of the bay, it really is
something that is -- that covers the entire bay. I mean, the concern is
to cover the entire bay.
And there -- once again, there has not been, in -- from the
information I have seen, an increase in manatee deaths even in the
area. So I'm puzzled why there was such a rush to make this decision.
But I have to take the position that the city council represents
their constituents, and I have to believe they made the best decision
they could make for their constituents.
I am disappointed that there are other people affected by this, and
we should have all been involved in at least hearing that evidence and
having an opportunity to debate it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have one other question to ask
you then, since it's your area. Has there been any talk of extending this
speed moratorium any farther than the bay, or is it just in the bay from
Gordon Pass north?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. It's actually -- actually
further south than that to extend to Dollar Bay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Dollar Bay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Dollar Bay begins about where the
turn from the main channel in the bay to go out Gordon Pass. Dollar
Bay extends south from there. And actually the slow speed zone will
extend, I think, pretty much all the way from the southern end from
Keewaydin Island all the way to the north reaches on the bay. So it
covers a fairly la -- fairly big area.
And it will have an adverse impact on people who want to go in
142
June 8, 2004
and out.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Speakers, please.
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. We have two speakers. Brad
Cornell. He will be followed by Philip Osborne.
MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Brad
Cornell --
MS. FILSON: I have three speakers.
MR. CORNELL: -- on behalf of Collier County Audubon
Society.
I went to some of the hearings that the city council had on this
issue and heard considerable amount of testimony on this issue. The
speed zones that are being proposed by the city council, I think, are a
compromise from what was originally proposed. Councilman John
Sorey had proposed something that was even more far-reaching than
what's on the proposal right now.
I think that both of -- that these proposals right now are
addressing the Fish and Wildlife Commission's criteria for both public
safety and manatee protection.
In the testimony that I heard from several boat captains and from
Sea Tow, there's a grave safety concern in several parts of Naples Bay,
and that was very graphically portrayed and detailed in those -- in the
workshop that I was at. And I was -- I was convinced that this is not a
frivolous exercise.
And I also was convinced that -- and this is also in my
examination of the Hamilton Harbor project, which, as you know, is
on the southern part of Naples Bay, some of the damage that that
proj ect proposes to mitigate has to do with wake impacts that the
speeding boats have on mangroves.
As the wakes build up a shoal along the mangrove areas, that
reduces circulation so you don't get the fresh and saltwater mixing like
you need to for mangroves, and this is injurious to mangrove areas
143
June 8, 2004
that are along the bay that we still have left.
So I see this as an important -- it's relatively small, but it's an
important piece of Naples Bay restoration.
And I don't have any objection -- Collier County Audubon
Society does not have any objection to your having a dialogue with
the city council. And by opening up this issue today on this
discussion, that's certainly a productive suggestion, however, I don't
believe that you should oppose their proposal for looking at stronger
speed zone regulations.
I think that we should remember that Naples Bay -- I don't think
this is going to be a big problem for the boating industry or for
recreation because I think that Naples Bay in itself is a boating
destination, and is a great -- I think it's enjoyable just to go down the
bay itself. It's a destination right there. So I would recommend against
opposing this. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You said Hamilton Harbor. I
thought -- maybe I'm wrong in my recollection. But about where
Hamilton Harbor is going to be placed in regards to the mouth of the
Gordon Pass, I think that area is already under a no wake zone; am I
correct, or am I wrong in my assumption?
MR. CORNELL: I need to look at the maps to refresh my
memory from the actual proposal that the city council has --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You need to ask somebody who
uses it.
MR. CORNELL: But it was documented that the wake shoulder
has impacted --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So if it's a no speed zone, there
shouldn't be a wake then, that's what I'm trying to get at.
MR. CORNELL: I would have to -- you'd have to ask somebody
else that question. But all I do know is they documented shoaling
144
June 8, 2004
from wakes. And if you've got a no wake zone, why do we have
wakes -- I mean, why do we have shoals?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have an answer.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think the agreement was
that a slow speed zone would be designated in that area when
Hamilton Harbor was developed because -- well, it's hard to answer
that because there is a slower speed zone during weekends and
holidays in the area. There is a slower speed zone as you begin to go
out Gordon Pass. In fact, there's a no wake zone as you get ready to
go out Gordon Pass, which, in itself, is a bit of a problem.
So yes, the issue of Hamilton Harbor at that particular
intersection would create certain potential safety issues if the boat
speeds were not controlled. That, however, in my estimation, is not an
argument to control the boat speeds in the entire bay to the extent that
they have been proposed.
Now -- but please, please understand that my point is not that I'm
right and somebody else is wrong. My point is that this debate would
not be taking place here today if there had been communication, if
there had been an interest in talking with the county commissioners
and informing the county commissioners of why this decision was
being made and how it will benefit the people of Collier County,
because Naples Bay is a resource for Collier County.
And so, I just don't want to divert attention from the reason why
-- I guess the reason that Commissioner Henning and Commissioner
Coletta brought this up, and unfortunately, for some reason, I'm doing
all the talking. But--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You always do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess because I'm frustrated that
we even got to this point because it could have been solved if we'd sat
down and talked, and then people wouldn't be wondering, why did
you make this decision and what data did you base the decision upon
and is it valid data, is it updated data.
145
June 8, 2004
The traffic data you're talking about is five, six years old, you
know. There's no new traffic data on the bay. How many manatees
have been killed by boats in the bay in the past three or four years?
What -- where are there mangroves being destroyed in Naples Bay?
There aren't many mangroves north of Hamilton Harbor, and
they all are on the eastern side of the bay and have quite some distance
from the channel.
So, you know, I think those are the kinds of things that we need
to understand. And if we understand those, we won't get into
disagreements about this stuff, and that's why it's important that we
talk to each other.
MR. CORNELL: Commissioner Coyle, I wholly agree with you,
and I -- you know, we support that reason for discussing this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. CORNELL: Just to have better communication.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just didn't want there to be any
misunderstanding. Yeah, I'm frustrated because we're in this kind of
dispute now, and we didn't have to be here.
MR. CORNELL: Right, right. I'm just standing here because of
the potential for opposition, and dialogue is important, and
communication, obviously, is very important, and now it's after the
fact. That's not a good situation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Opposition is what you get when
you don't communicate. That's the problem.
MR. CORNELL: Agreed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Philip Osborne. He will be
followed by Nicole Ryan.
MR. OSBORNE: Commissioners, thank you for bringing this
issue for discussion today.
The Marine Industries Association of Collier County thanks you
for becoming involved. We're very frustrated with city government's
146
June 8, 2004
decision to move in the direction that they did and not to involve all of
Collier County's interests in debating this. It just seems like they're on
the fast track to get this done as quickly as possible.
When the discussion was brought about for your request,
Commissioner Coyle, to sit and have workshop discussions, the
decision was unanimous with the exception of Councilwoman
Wiseman and -- doggone it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Clark Russell?
MR. OSBORNE: -- Clark Russell. They were the ones that
were suggesting that nothing be done because they are in agreement
with your questioning of the data and the validity of the data, the age
of the data, et cetera, et cetera. So for that we do thank you.
You're exactly right; I mean, that is a resource for all of the
residents of Collier County. And, quite frankly, it's an attraction for
tourists who come here and spend dollars in the Naples community.
So as far as the harbor -- Hamilton Harbor issue, the Marine
Industries Association is in full agreement that when the Hamilton
Harbor project comes to fruition, that the need to control boat speeds,
make that a slow speed area at what's referred to as the four comers,
certainly makes safety sense for everybody.
And so currently you're correct, sir, that is weekends and
holidays, slow speed zone now. And -- but, again, will be 24/7 once
that project comes to pass.
So, once again, Marine Industries Association wants to thank you
for your involvement, and hopefully we can have some discussion
before the second reading, which is on the 16th of this month. Thank
you very much.
MS. FILSON: The final speaker is Nicole Ryan.
MS. RYAN: Pass.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, she passed. Okay.
Yes, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to make a motion that
147
June 8, 2004
we direct the Chair to write a letter to the mayor and council stating
our concerns and asking for a workshop.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: A workshop for supporting data?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's what a workshop is.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second on that motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor to
direct the chairman to write a letter to city council requesting a
workshop and supporting data on this subj ect, and a second by
Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Halas--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: --last time I looked.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I have any discussion on this subject?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a 4-0. Thank you.
So now let's --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Take a break?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning is already gone, it
looks like, so --
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, we go back to 8(B), and --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- just plug our way through it.
148
June 8, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So we will--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did you want to take a break?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, yes. Let's do that. Let's take our
10-minute break and give this nice court reporter a little bit of a break.
(A brief recess was taken.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Madam Chair, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. All the commissioners are
here, they're just dispersed around. I know they're all here because I
just saw them a minute ago.
Item #8B CONTINUED FROM EARLIER IN THE MEETING
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, this brings us back to item 8(B).
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. So then do we put that back
on the record again as -- yes?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Reconvene?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Reconvene, yes. Thank you, on item
8(B). Thank you.
MR. MUDD: And the next petition, I believe, is petition
CP-2003-1, future land use element, FLUE, and the future land use
map, FL UM, and map series, petition requesting amendment to the
future land use element and future land use map to expand Vanderbilt
Beach/Collier Boulevard commercial subdistrict and to restrict some
uses in the expansion area to include 15.88 plus or minus acres located
on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road and a quarter mile west of
County Road 951, in Section 34, Township 48 south, Range 26 east.
And Mr. Y ovanovich, are you presenting, sir?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could you get us to the right
section of what book we're supposed to be in?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: White book.
149
June 8, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I got the white book.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 2003.1, you said?
MR. MUDD: CP-2001-1, yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioners, for the record, Rich
Y ovanovich, representing the petitioner.
I've placed a location map on the -- I'll let you do that, Jim -- on
the visualizer. This is the property at the corner of Vanderbilt Beach
Road and Collier Boulevard in the northwest quadrant.
The corner parcel is already an existing 40-acre parcel that has
been zoned for a shopping center. The 15 point (sic) acres is
immediately to the west.
We went to the Planning Commission and received unanimous
recommendation of approval for the request of uses to include this into
the Vanderbilt Beach, Collier Boulevard commercial subdistrict.
There are some limitations on the uses on this 15.8 acres. It
prohibits gas stations, convenience stores, or gas pumps.
Essentially what we are -- some restaurants and similar type uses
there to serve the immediately surrounding area. Recently we went
through with the Wolf what -- Wolf Creek PUD, which is immediately
to the north that has about 590, Fox Run across the street, you've got
Vanderbilt Country Club. So this is some retail to service those
properties.
Unless you have specific questions, I believe your staff
recommended approval as well as the Planning Commission, and I'm
available to answer any questions you may have regarding the
potential uses of the property.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have any speakers on this subject?
MS. FILSON: I still have -- I still have speakers on 8(B), but I
don't have anyone for 2003-1, unless they didn't mark it on their slip.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I hope not. We didn't have any at the
Planning Commission.
150
June 8, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any questions from the
commissioners? Yes, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: As we go through this process here
and as we get ready to direct these for transmittal, is there going to be
public hearings available for people to disclose whether they -- how
they feel in regards to these amendments that we're putting in here on
the -- '
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- Growth Management Plan?
MR. MUDD: This was advertised, an advertised public hearing.
You're having one right now. You've been having it most of the day,
I believe.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, but I'm saying afterwards.
After this has been transmitted up, is --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: there gOIng to be the
opportunity?
MR. MUDD: During the adoption hearing--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- you'll have a public hearing notice again before
you vote to adopt, and plus, it will go back to the Planning
Commission again, I believe.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Just so you know, Mr. Halas, we did take
it upon ourselves to meet with representatives of the Divosta
community to the west as well as the Vanderbilt Country Club people
to the east.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me close the public hearing right
now, being that there are no speakers, no further questions.
151
-- ".--,",...-
June 8, 2004
And Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Halas.
Mr. Heath?
MR. HEATH: Madam Chair, if you'll look in the planning --
Glenn Heath, county comprehensive planning staff. If you'll look at
the Planning Commission recommendations on this item on -- I have
page 3. I'm not sure what your page of the recommendations is. But
there's some yellow shaded language.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
MR. HEATH: We have been discussing with the petitioner, and
we're -- staff would like to make some changes to the shaded
language, and I'd like to read it into the record, if I may.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Please do.
MR. HEATH: Pursuant to policy 1.1.2 of the Collier County
capital improvement element and policy 5.1 of the transportation
element, approval of any subsequent rezone petition for the subj ect
property by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners shall
be contingent upon prohibition of issuance of further development
orders until all impacted roadways are no longer deficient, or
improvements are included in the first or second year of the schedule
of capital improvements.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Very good.
MR. MUDD: Period.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I include that in my motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's in my second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: The motion is to amended to include the
words that Glenn Heath just read into the record, and the second also
152
June 8, 2004
included those words.
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.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, the next petItIon is petItIon
CP-2003-2, future land use element, FLUE, and future land use map,
FLUM, and map series. Petition requesting amendment to the future
land use element and future land use map to establish
Livingston/Radio Road commercial subdistrict, allowing commercial
uses in the C-3 district with a maximum of 50,000 square feet for a
plus or minus five-acre parcel located at the northwest corner of
Livingston and Radio Roads in Section 36, Township 49 south, Range
29 east, and Mr. Anderson will present.
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman,
members of the commission. My name is Bruce Anderson on behalf
of the applicant. I have Robert Duane with me, land use planner.
This is a prelude to a down zoning. We're asking the commission
to change the designation on this five-acre parcel of property from
industrial to commercial. And there have been no public objections to
it.
And the Planning Commission vote was split 5-4, not because
they didn't like the amendment, but because there was some
disagreement amongst the planning commissioners as to whether it
was a good idea or not to allow the option of residential uses in
conjunction with the commercial.
153
June 8, 2004
The applicant didn't care either way, and we went along with the
suggestion from one of the Planning Commission members, and lo
and behold, we drew some negative votes on the amendment by trying
to be cooperative. I'llleam from that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I thought you were just getting in place
and ready to go there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll make a motion for approval on
this item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: A motion to approve by Commissioner
Halas, a second by Commissioner Coyle.
Any discussion? Oh--
MR. MUDD: Do we have any speakers?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- I must close the public hearing.
MS. FILSON: And the only speaker I thought wanted to speak
on this was Rich Y ovanovich.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: He walked out (sic) the room.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIA~A: Now I'll close the public hearing. I'm so
sorry. I've got the cart before the horse again. We have --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'll make a motion --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- for approving this item.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So after the -- after closing the
public hearing, Commissioner Halas has made a motion to approve
with a second by Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
154
-_._'-~-..'--.--'.'.
June 8, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Next petition is pe -- Madam Chair, is petition
CPSP-2003-3, and that's a petition requesting amendment to the future
land use element and future land use map to establish the
Livingston/Veterans Memorial Boulevard commercial infill subdistrict
allowing commercial uses in the C-I district with a maximum of
50,000 square feet for a two plus two five, two and a quarter acre
parcel located at the southeast comer of Livingston Road north/south
and Livingston Road east/west in Section 13, Township 48 south,
Range 25 east.
MR. DUANE: For the record, my name is Robert Duane
representing the petitioner. I'm going to be very brief.
This subdistrict is located at the intersection of your north/south
Livingston Road and your east/west Livingston Road, which is
sometimes referred to as Veterans Memorial Boulevard. Planning
Commission recommended unanimously this be approved and we'ye
had staff support since we filed the application last year.
Be happy to answer any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any questions, Commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Then the public hearing is closed.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion to approve by --,
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- Commissioner Coletta, and a second by
155
June 8, 2004
Commissioner Coyle.
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.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good, passes 4-0.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, we already did the fifth position (sic)
before Commissioner Henning left, and that brings us to the sixth
petition, which is petition CPSP-2003-11, various elements as listed
below, major portion of the petition, all except wildlife policies~
petition requesting various glitch amendments consisting of technical
corrections, clarifications, and additional terminology to the future
land use element, FL UE, conservation and coastal management
element, CCME, capital improvement element, CIE, transportation
element, the TE, and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan element, the
GGAMP, pertaining to the rural fringe area and the rural eastern land
stewardship area.
And Marti Chumbler will present.
MS. CHUMBLER: Good afternoon. Madam Chairman,
members of the commission, I'm Martha Harold Chumbler, outside
land use attorney for the county.
As Mr. Mudd just indicated~ we've got what we've referred to
here as the glitch amendments. These are amendments that truly
correct errors, some just typographical grammatical errors and also
provide clarification as a follow-up to those rural fringe and rural
stewardship land amendments that were made over the past two years.
I'm going to fly through these, and if you have questions about
156
June 8, 2004
any of these pages, please just stop me if there are just questions or if
you need some further information about them, otherwise, I will just
very briefly mention the changes that are made on a page by page
basis, if that's acceptable.
Okay. The first -- and I think my -- I have my page numbering
now coordinated with yours. I believe your amendments here start on
page 28; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Twenty-seven, I thought.
MS. CHUMBLER: Twenty-seven? Wildlife -- oh, we're doing
the wildlife policy first? I thought you -- I think the wildlife policy is
probably 27.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. What page are we on then?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think it's 27.
MS. CHUMBLER: Page 28.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Twenty-eight?
MS. CHUMBLER: On that page there's merely the addition of
two words, and, for grammatical purposes.
The next changes that are shown there, which is striking some
language and adding language, we removed the word interim before
natural resource protection area. We've added within the rural fringe
mixed use district. We've also added references to the flowway
stewardship areas, habitat stewardship areas within the rural lands
stewardship areas and the water retention areas within the rural
stewardship area overlay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Why am I having problems?
MS. CHUMBLER: The next changes, which look to me like
they're probably on your pages 29 and 30 -- am I going too fast?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, you are.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, I'm still -- yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
MS. CHUMBLER: Let me know when I'm -- when you've
caught up.
157
--_..-
June 8, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sorry.
MS. CHUMBLER: That's all right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why don't you give us the page
number you're on now. Thirty, is it?
MS. CHUMBLER: Page 30. It's actually 29 and 30, the future
land use map series. I'll look for you to look up so that I know you're
all on the same page or not.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's the first thing you're going
to touch on? Are you going to be into residential infill?
MS. CHUMBLER: I will --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: When we catch up, is that --
MS. CHUMBLER: Eventually. No. The next item on my list
would be simply that we have added to the list of future land use map
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. CHUMBLER: -- future land use map series a number of
maps that were added during the rural fringe and stewardship area
process.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And those maps are the North Belle Meade
overlay map.
MS. CHUMBLER: Right.
MR. MUDD: The future land use map for the wellhead
protection area, the future land use map for the Bayshore Gateway
Triangle redevelopment overlay map, and the urban rural fringe
transition zone overlay map, okay. Do I have nods on all of those? I
just want to make sure I'm reading the same thing you're reading.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're on the right page now.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MS. CHUMBLER: Okay. Then the next change would be at
density rating system, residential infill, which I think Commissioner
Halas was --
158
June 8, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
MS. CHUMBLER: -- where you indicated you were.
We have there deleted some language that was simply directions
for the county to adopt LDRs. Those LDRs have now been adopted,
so that language is now moot and is stricken.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Marti, can I ask you to go back just a
couple pages for me --
MS. CHUMBLER: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- under protection of natural resource
systems.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What page?
MS. CHUMBLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I couldn't tell you the right page. But
anyway --
MS. CHUMBLER: I see it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- it's just a little -- okay.
MS. CHUMBLER: I see it as page 28.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, 28. Just in the middle of the
second bullet down there it says, through site plan review procedures
in the land development regulations, development is guided --
MS. CHUMBLER: There's an 0 missing, isn't there?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MS. CHUMBLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is that to the portions?
MS. CHUMBLER: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Or through the portions. I wasn't
quite sure, so I thought we could correct that.
MS. CHUMBLER: Yeah, and that's not --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Excuse me. Did you say 28 or 29?
MR. MUDD: Twenty-eight.
MS. CHUMBLER: Twenty-eight.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
159
June 8, 2004
MS. CHUMBLER: In actuality, Commissioner, I believe that
language is adopted language already that we're not making a change
to, so -- and it's not being shown as a change, but we'll make sure the
right word gets there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. I wasn't quite sure what the T
would stand for, so I thought maybe we ought to clarify that. Thank
you.
MS. CHUMBLER: Okay. All right. We'll go back to --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sorry.
MS. CHUMBLER: -- the next provision, which is under density
blending. I believe it's on your page 30; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Density blending is under D and
it's on page 31. If you're talking density blending?
MS. CHUMBLER: Yes. I'm sorry, I --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mine shows 30 also.
MS. CHUMBLER: -- borrowed Mr. Litsinger's book, but he
must have it in a couple different places, so I will try to be one page
ahead.
Okay. Page 31, density blending. There we have -- we have
clarified that density blending can be used in addition to those
properties that straddle the urban mixed use areas and the rural fringe
mixed use. It can also be used for areas that straddle receiving and
neutral. The purpose of that is, where you may have more
environmentally sensitive properties in -- actually in receiving
adjacent to neutral, you can density blend to preserve the most
sensitive properties. That's the -- that's the intent of that addition.
And we have added -- if you look under that following
conditions, we have added specific conditions to guide when that
density blending would be allowed.
The next changes, there's a whole series of deletions here starting
under Roman II, agricultural/rural designation. What we've done here
is we've stricken that language that related to the assessment and the
160
June 8, 2004
moratorium. That language is now just historical and therefore not
really necessarily in the plan anymore. The assessment, of course, is
now complete. The moratorium is over, and so we've stricken all of
that language.
The only thing that is left now -- and I believe this is probably on
your page 33, I would guess.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thirty-two, I think it starts --
MS. CHUMBLER: Well, I'm turning your--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- in the application?
MS. CHUMBLER: -- turning your attention now to the heading,
interim development provisions of agricultural assessment area. And
you'll see that the majority of that is stricken until you get down to a
new sentence that reads, any application for conditional use filed prior
to July 22nd, 2003. That is to accommodate a particular project for
which there was an application pending, and there has been some
litigation.
The matter was abated -- the litigation was abated during the
pendency of the rural fringe amendment adoption, and this language is
here to grandfather in that project to make it subject to those interim
provisions that were in effect at the time that it filed its application.
If you turn to the next page, you will see that there continues to
be a series of strikings, deletions. These were the moratorium
provisions that were in effect while the assessment was taking place.
Turn your attention now to capital A, agricultural/rural mixed use
district, rural commercial subdistrict. The first change there, again, is
striking language referring to the interim development provisions.
That language is now moot.
Under number 1, transfer of development rights, we've simply
added in the neutral to make it clear that that neutral category was
inadvertently left out before in this -- only in this title.
We've also added a sentence to the end of that provision making
it clear that the neutral areas are such that you cannot transfer TDR
161
June 8, 2004
credits either from or into the neutral areas.
Under number 1, maximum density, we have, again, added some
language to clarify that the density -- maximum density referred to
there is exclusive of density obtained through density blending. We
have also added a sentence that is consistent with what -- the policy
decision this body made during the LDRs, that being that TDR credits
cannot be used -- can only be used in whole units, not in fractions.
That language has been added.
Under 1, paren B, we have there the density bonuses, and we
realized that there is -- was another density bonus provision in the
CCME that we neglected to address here. That density bonus that
we've now proposed to add as subparagraph B is a 10 percent density
bonus for certain wetlands and habitat protection that's over and above
the minimum requirements.
There is language -- the language that you see stricken
immediately after that actually is -- we've simply moved it. If you
look, it was placed up above A and B, and so there's added language
and deleted language, but, in fact, it's just a movement of the exact
same language from one place to another.
The next real change is at subparagraph 5. We've stricken the
word permitted and put in allowable there. In actuality, permitted has
a -- is a real term of art. Use permitted uses and conditional uses for
the receiving lands and the neutral lands in the camp. plan. We have
not distinguished between permitted and conditional. That's done in
your LDRs in your land development regulations.
And so to make it clear that all the compo plan has done is say,
here is the -- here is the universe of uses that are allowed within this
land uses classification. The land development regulations will further
specify which of those allowable uses are going to be permitted as of
right and which ones will be conditional.
And so to be consistent with that policy, we've changed the word
here from permitted to allowable. Same change is made for the
162
June 8, 2004
neutral land use classification.
Under subparagraph A, agricultural uses, we've simply stricken
the examples. From a legal standpoint, when you start giving
examples, you then can become problematic, because someone who
has a different type of agriculture argue -- you get into an argument of
whether or not it's agriculture or whether or not it's close enough to
those examples to be agriculture. And we simply felt that you were
better off as a county simply saying agriculture.
In subparagraph C there was simply a word missing there, shall,
which has been added.
Under subparagraph K, you'll see as to golf courses, the intent in
the very clear policy of this body in the rural fringe amendments was
that for any golf course development in the rural fringe, there would
be a requirement that the actual golf course component of it require
the use ofTDRs.
There was some confusion in the way that the language was
written before. We had attempted to distinguish between density
blending and non-density blended projects. We looked at it. We
realized that there was really no need for that, that instead we just
simply needed to add language that very, very clearly stated that the
non-residential portions of golf courses does require the use of TDR
credits, and that's the intent of those changes.
The next change relating to golf courses, which is under subparen
2, refers to the best management practices of the Audubon Gold
Program, and that change is made simply to make it consistent with
language used in the rural stewardship land provisions of the
comprehensive plan. If you recall, that was the -- those were the
amendments that were adopted later in time.
Under subparagraph 0 -- if you actually look at subparagraphs 0
and W at the same time. We had discussion back and forth with
representatives from the school board relating to the public school
uses within the rural fringe and decided that, after discussions, that it
163
June 8, 2004
was actually much clearer to simply list public educational plants and
ancillary plants as a use and then the land development regulations
will more properly specify which uses are appropriate as permitted as
of right and what the conditions would be and which uses were more
appropriate as conditional uses with the criteria applicable to that.
We also felt that it might be appropriate to split private schools
out as a separate use, because clearly with private schools, you're not
-- you don't have that sort of intergovernmental coordination element
that you do with the school board.
Subparagraph V, parks, open space, and recreational uses were
simply inadvertently left out from the list of allowable uses last go
round, so we've added those back in.
Sub -- paragraph 8 there, adjustment to receiving land
boundaries. As you recall in the original rural fringe amendments, we
made provisions for the property owners who have sending lands
adjacent to the boundary -- boundaries of neutral for receiving, to
submit data to the county supporting a reclassification of their land to
the same classification of that which borders them. And there was a __
there was a schedule for that.
The suggestion was made during this process that really the same
procedure should be available to property owners who have neutral
lands bordering sending -- or receiving lands bordering sending or
neutral, that someone who has sending might very well feel that they
should -- or someone who has receiving might very well feel that their
land, more appropriately, should have been sending, and there should
be a like process for them to submit data to the county and have the
county initiate a camp. plan change if the data supports such a change.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Just a question on that.
MS. CHUMBLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So if I have a property that I feel really
should have been in a receiving land and here I am in a sending land
but I'm contiguous with that, and so the powers that be see fit to allo\v
164
June 8, 2004
me to be a neutral land instead, then what happens to the property next
to me who feels they also ought to be a neutral land and they're
contiguous now?
MS. CHUMBLER: Well, that process was actually already there
for sending lands. The original -- the compo plan amendments that
were adopted two -- more than two years ago now, had a provision for
property -- for sending landowners who were adjacent to either neutral
or receiving to submit additional data to the county, and the county
would then review that data, and if it felt that the data supported the
change, the county would then initiate a compo plan change to change
the designation of that sending land. That was already there.
All this language does is provide for the same type of procedure
for a receiving land property owner.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
MS. CHUMBLER: And there's a like provision that does the
same for a neutral land property owner.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That isn't actually what I was looking for,
but okay.
MS. CHUMBLER: Did I not answer -- I'd be happy to -- if I
didn't answer your question.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What I was saying was, if I had the land
that was adj acent to and I wasn't happy with my designation, no
matter what it would be, and now all of a sudden the guy next to me
who has his land right up against mine gets to have a new designation,
I'm next to him now; I want that new designation, too. I mean, how
far can it go with the ripple effect or the domino effect?
MS. CHUMBLER: You'll note there's a -- there's a deadline
here. It's a one-year deadline.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. CHUMBLER: So we're basically saying you have one year
to do this.
Now, I need to remind you that under this county's procedure and
165
June 8, 2004
every other county in the State of Florida's procedure, at any time a
landowner can petition the county for a land use change, and you have
a one-year, one time a year window in which someone could corne
and petition the county for a comprehensive plan change. Anyone can
always do that.
The difference here is, this would be a county-initiated change at
the county's expense, but there's only a one-year window in which to
get it done.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think there's one other issue that
might be emphasized in this respect, and that is, it's not the contiguous
nature of the property that determines that it can be reclassified. It's
the data that must be developed and the studies that must be done to
demonstrate that it, in fact, deserves to be changed. It can't be
changed just because it's contiguous.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Okay. That clarifies it.
MS. CHUMBLER: Thank you for clarifying that.
Under paren capital B, neutral lands, you'll see we've made the
same change, striking permitted and putting allowable for the same
reasons as I explained for the receiving classification. It more
accurately reflects what is actually being stated here in the
comprehensive plan. As with receiving, we've stricken examples of
agriculture.
In 3, paren C, we've made provision for multi-family residential
structures. There was -- it became clear that there was not really an
intent to prohibit density blending in neutral lands, and further
thinking about -- through that, it seemed that if you're using density
blending for the purpose of preserving the property that's most in need
of preservation, that there really should be no reason to prohibit
multi-family under certain conditions, and that's what this language is
designed to do. And actually it's clustering rather than density
blending. I apologize.a
166
June 8, 2004
The same changes, again, made under golf courses so that the
best management practices language is consistent with the language
that's in the rural stewardship land. Again, the same changes are being
made relate -- with respect to the public educational facilities and
private educational facilities, and as well, we have added parks, open
space, and recreational uses as an allowable use in neutral lands. That
was inadvertently admitted -- omitted before.
We have added specific provisions that -- to allow density
blending within neutral lands, and as with receiving, we have made
provision for neutral property owners adjacent to either receiving or
sending to submit data, within one year, that would support a change
of their land use classification.
Now, I want to turn your attention a little bit on C, sending lands.
You will note there under 4, that for sending lands, unlike receiving
and neutral, we have in the compo plan specifically said, which uses
are permitted as of right and which are conditional. So that's why the
change is not being made to sending. Because in sending, the compo
plan does specify which uses are permitting -- permitted and which are
conditional.
The first change is actually made --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
MS. CHUMBLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With respect to subparagraph 4(H),
under C, sending lands.
MS. CHUMBLER: Yes, I was just about to get there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, you haven't gotten there yet?
MS. CHUMBLER: I was just about to.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. The question here is, we're
saying that a permitted use is oil and gas exploration. I don't see any
place where oil extraction is permitted.
MS. CHUMBLER: If you look down under conditional uses -_
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
167
June 8, 2004
MS. CHUMBLER: -- paren 4, oil and gas field development
production, and in your LDR definitions, that specifically includes
extraction.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. CHUMBLER: And that distinction between the permitted
use of oil and gas exploration and the conditional use of oil and gases
field development production is a policy that this body decided upon
during the LDR process, so that both of those oil and gas changes are
now consistent with what's set forth in the LDRs.
There are some numbering corrections. You will see under 5,
conditional uses, as well that those were simply errors in cross
references before.
The next substantive change is in capital B, paren, additional
TDR provisions. We have attempted throughout this -- these
amendments to make terminology consistent. So you will see that in
the -- what I have as the third line of subparagraph 1, we have used --
started using the terminology of TDR credits, whereas before we
might have, some places, called them TDRs, some places we called
them credits, some places we called them units. What we've tried to
do now is uniformly use the term TDR credits, and so that also occurs
down in subparagraph 2.
Within subparagraph 2 you will see some language that's stricken
that relates to considerations this bodies was to make with respect to
fiscal year 2004 budget. That, of course, was done, and that language
is now redundant, so it's been stricken.
In subparagraph 3, we, again, added the term -- or used the terms
TDR credits. We also attempted to uniformly refer to TDR credits as
being generated from sending lands and generated by virtue of their
severance from those sending lands. So those are the terms that we
have now attempted to use uniformly throughout this camp. plan, and
that -- you'll see that particularly in subparagraph 3, limitations and
procedures.
168
June 8, 2004
In subparagraph 5, we've simply tried to clarify that 25-year
prohibition, whereas someone clears their sending lands for
agricultural purposes, they cannot then sever TDRs from that portion
of the land that has been cleared. That's merely intended as a
clarification.
Under rural villages, again, the use of the term TDR credits.
In subparagraph C, we have -- are attempting to clarify the
density provisions to make clear that these density bonuses can be
used in any combination. They can be used alone or in combination
with one another.
We have, again, added in subparagraph 4 a reference to the
density bonus provision that was already in the CCME for
preservation of wetlands and habitat above and beyond the minimum
required in the CCME.
There is next some language stricken that refers to the
development of land development code provisions on workforce
housing and affordable housing. That has been done and, therefore,
we propose striking that language.
In -- under capital E, open space and environmental protection __
and I think this is probably on about your page 40 -- there's actually a
correction here. Under B, open space, we've shown the addition of the
40 percent. It should show 70 percent as stricken.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, yeah.
MS. CHUMBLER: And the reason for that, the current compo
plan has 70 percent. As people began to get into this process of
planning and looking at the feasibility of rural villages, we all came to
the conclusion that that 70 percent open space requirement was going
to be a major disincentive for rural villages.
And so we decided to look to see what a more appropriate open
space requirement may be. Forty percent was really taken by looking
at what the requirements in the rural stewardship lands is, and it's
similar to the open space requirements that are required for towns in
169
June 8, 2004
the stewardship areas. That's where the 40 percent came from.
In -- under conservation designation, there is simply a correction
in the numbering, as there is under North Belle Meade general,
correction in the numbering.
The -- under North Belle Meade overlay general, probably your
page 40, we've added language, other than those relating to density
and allowable uses. As it was stated before, it was unclear that the
density provision and use provisions for receiving lands applied to
North Belle Meade receiving.
And I think everyone understood that it should, but it certainly
was not stated clearly in the camp. plan, so that language is merely
intended for clarification.
The next change is under sending land and North Belle Meade.
Again, we've attempted to uniformly use the term sending lands.
We've made that change. Again, use of the terms, TDR credits
generated from.
We also have here clarified that the TDRs generated from North
Belle Meade sending, just like sending lands in other portions of the
rural fringe, can be used either in the rural fringe mixed use district or
by transfer to urban areas following the criteria that are set forth
elsewhere in the compo plan.
The next substantive change is under the receiving areas,
probably your page 41, carrying over, perhaps, to 42. You'll see a
series of date changes there. As you recall, the effective date for the
rural fringe amendments was delayed by approximately a year
because of the camp. plan challenge; therefore, we felt it appropriate,
just as the effective date of the camp. plan was pushed off by one
year, that these dates should be pushed off by one year. So the
schedule, really time allotted, would be the same as what was
originally intended.
Turning now under planning considerations, density bonuses. In
-- we needed to add language clarifying how density bonuses would
170
June 8, 2004
work in North Belle Meade receiving, because unlike other receiving
areas, there is no minimum native preservation requirement. Some of
those -- some of those CCME requirements that apply to other
receiving areas do not apply to North Belle Meade receiving, and
therefore, the way that density bonus is used in North Belle Meade
receiving needed to be dealt with a little bit differently. The intent is
for it effectively to be the same, but we just needed some language to
clarify that. And so that would be A, paren 1 and paren 2.
Under North Belle Meade rural village, we've stricken that
commercial there. It really had no meaning.
Under paren 2, we have, again, used TDR credits. And I would
suggest, when reading this through today, I think that "the," shall be
acquired through the TDR credits. The "the" should be stricken just
for grammatical purposes. It doesn't read well with the "the" in there.
Under paren 4, green belts, there is no green belt requirement in
North Belle Meade rural villages, and yet we wanted to make it clear
that if the developer of a rural village in North Belle Meade elected to
have a green belt, that their own space requirement would include
whatever green belt they do provide, and that's the intent of that
language.
Under sending areas, probably at your page 43, planning
considerations, we've stricken language relating to mitigation credit.
The county does not give mitigation credit simply for preservation,
and certainly the county has no authority to tell the state or the federal
government what they should accept as mitigation credit, and,
therefore, the mitigation credit language has no meaning.
There's also language there about on-site vegetative preservation
during North Belle Meade receiving lands, and there is no such
requirement, so we've stricken that language.
Under 5, neutral lands, probably on your page 43, we have
changed the language a little bit on the RCW study. That RCW study
has now been perfonned. They're currently still reviewing that study,
171
June 8, 2004
and sometime in the future, in the upcoming months, there'll be a
presentation given to you with suggestions on what should be done in
terms of implementing the findings of that study.
C, natural resource protection area, you'll see that we've stricken
Okaloacoochee Slough, interim, and Camp Keais, interim. Of course,
those are all graphically within the rural stewardship lands. And as
you recall, rather than designating NRP As within that' area, we use
different terminology, HSAs and FSAs. So there are -- there is no
longer an NRP A designation for the Okaloacoochee Slough or Camp
Keais Strand.
The language, or on nearby or adjacent conservation designated
lands, is really unnecessary there. NRP As that are in the rural fringe
mixed use district are all identified as sending lands regardless of
where they're located.
We've also stricken there, the identification of interim, since
there are no longer any interim amendments.
Under 4, private -- for privately owned lands, you'll see that
we've stricken, for estates respectively.
Paragraph 5 that immediately follows that also included the
Estates but says that the Estates is subject to the Golden Gate Estates
Master Plan. But clearly the way the compo plan is now, you have
inconsistent provisions. One saying that the Estates is subject to one
thing and another saying it's subject to something else.
So we've -- the decision was that they really should be subject to
the Golden Gate Estates Master Plan, therefore we've stricken the
reference to the Estates in paragraph 4 and left it in paragraph 5.
The next change I have is actually in the rural stewardship lands.
We're getting into group 3. The first change is at policy 3.9, probably
on your page 44, and it references -- paragraph 1 references -- gives an
exception for incidental clearing, and then paragraph 2 describes what
incidental clearing is.
The intent of this provision was really to accommodate those
172
June 8, 2004
very small amounts of clearing that are necessitated to simply square
off farm fields or to accommodate the movement of farm equipment
from one field to another field. And you'll see in paragraph 2 that
we're really talking about very small areas.
Policy 4.15.2, as well as policies that follow, relate to SRAs.
15.2 relates to the public facility impacts. It's designed to ensure that
SRAs are subj ect to the same requirements as PUDs.
4.15.3 relates to public school impacts.
4.16 clarifies that the infrastructure requirements that you review
in approving an SRA should be -- that you should look at capacity
infrastructure that's necessary to serve the SRA at build-out. That was
to clarify that language.
4.17, again, relating to SRAs and public facilities and making
clear how the concurrency management system applies to SRAs.
Policy 4 -- there was actually two 4.17s, so we corrected the
numbering. The second one now becomes 4.18. And this -- whereas
before we had specified a particular fiscal impact model that was
required, decided that there are a number of fallen fiscal (sic) models
out there and that we should allow any acceptable model until such
point in time that the county may decide to adopt a single one that it
feels is appropriate, but we've not gotten there yet.
Clarification in 4.18, further at the end, simply relating to
development phasing. The ways in which you would address
potential adverse impacts, we wanted to expand that list to make it
clear that developer contributions, mitigation, and other public/private
partnerships could be used or considered as ways of addressing
potential adverse impacts.
Policy 5.5, I would think on your page 46, you'll see the word
potentiaIly stricken. That was done so that this provision will read the
same way that the like provision reads elsewhere in the
comprehensive plan.
In subparagraph A, 3, little I, you'll see some strike-throughs and
173
June 8, 2004
some additions there. In the compo plan as it exists today, there is an
inconsistency. In one place it says that native vegetation preservation
should be given number one priority for preservation. In another
place it said that wetlands preservation should be given number one
priority. And so we decided that doesn't work.
And this language is designed to make it clear that this amount __
that minimum 40 percent should be retained, but we've stricken the
priority, because if you look over elsewhere, like in the CCME, you'll
see there's other language that says that wetlands would be given
priority .
4.6, these are changes relating to wetlands functionality scores.
As you may recall, at the time the stewardship amendments were
originally approved by this body, the -- what we refer to as the WRAP
scores, W-R-A-P, was the functionality assessments that had been
used for some period of time, but the South Florida Water
Management District was in the process of adopting. They had not
yet adopted, but they were in the process of adopting unifonn
wetlands mitigation assessment, and that second method now has been
adopted, and it's included in their rules.
So what we've done here is simply made amendments to
recognize that the more recent methodology is in effect and should be
utilized; however, we also wanted to recognize there are some
property owners who already had WRAP scores, WRAP functionality
scores, that had gone through the process and had been approved by
the South Florida Water Management District, and we felt that those
already-approved scores should be accepted by the county. So that's
why we've left the reference to WRAPs in this rather than simply
deleting that reference altogether.
Those are all the amendments that I have in the future land use
element. Unless there are questions, I will move now into the glitch
amendments for the conservation coastal management element,
probably your page 48.
174
June 8, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
MS. CHUMBLER: The first change is policy 1.1.9, which is a
new policy. This language reflects policy decisions made during the
LDR process.
And while it's a lengthy provision, it is -- is really does reflect __
reflect decisions that the body has already made, this body has already
made.
In policy 1.3.1, again, we have now stricken language that relates
to the assessment that occurred during the moratorium period so that
all of those changes that are made in policy 1.3.1 merely strike
language that's now moot.
Under objective 6.1, 6.1.1 in that table, you will see a small
change. We have simply added equal to or greater than to make it
clear that it is, in fact, equal to or greater than.
On probably the very bottom of your page 49, going into 50, on
the selection of preservation areas, here again you'll see there was
some -- it had the following criteria in descending order of priority.
We've made some changes there to clarify what the priority is and
have also stricken the language relating to gopher tortoises, since
there's more specific provisions on gopher tortoises elsewhere.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So when you say movement of wildlife
preserved, instead of shall be preserved? In A. Does that read right to
you?
MS. CHUMBLER: No, it doesn't. You have to read it -- it's
really, selection of preservation areas shall reflect the following
criteria in descending order or priority. So areas known to be utilized
by listed species that serve as the corridors -- I think the "shall be"
should be back in there. I'll have to look at that again, but I think
you're correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sounds like it.
MS. CHUMBLER: I think you're correct. I'll have to get that
changed.
175
June 8, 2004
Under 6.1.2, C and D, you'll see in C we've stricken 80 percent of
the total site, and in D, 90 percent of the total site. The intent here was
never to require someone to preserve more than 80 percent in
non-NRP A sending or 90 percent in NRP A sending of their native
vegetation. It was not the intent to require people to preserve areas of
their land that was not native vegetation.
And so, the 80 percent -- it was decided that the 80 percent
protection of native vegetation present and 90 in NRP A sending was
sufficient, that the other language is unclear and, in fact, had
unintended consequences.
6.2.5, again, the same change that I mentioned earlier,
recognizing that the uniform wetland mitigation assessment method is
now in effect, but also recognizing that there are property owners who
have preapproved WRAP scores. The same is true on subparagraph 2.
Those are all the changes in this particular set of amendments on
the CCME.
I would turn next to the capital improvement element, probably
your page 52. All of the changes that are made there are done to
recognize and to provide for the applicability of the capital
improvement element to stewardship receiving areas. So we've added
that specific reference to SRA designated areas in several places in the
CIE.
The same is true under the transportation element, policy 5.1,
probably your page 53, simply to recognize and provide for SRA
designations.
And lastly in this body of amendments, under the Golden Gate
Master Plan, which I would think would probably be your page 54,
under the Southern Golden Gate Estates Natural Resource Protection
Overlay, rather than having specific standards for Southern Golden
Gate's NRP A, we've simply stated that that NRP A is subject to the
same requirements as all other NRP As.
I would note that in order to make our verbs consistent, it really
176
June 8, 2004
should be, and is subject to, rather than and are subject to.
With that said, I think there's some wildlife amendments, but
those are set forth as a separate resolution.
Those are all the glitch amendments in this set of amendments.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Do we have any speakers on this subject?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. We have about four speakers.
Bruce Anderson. Did you want to speak on this one? It says
2003-11. That's what they're on.
MR. ANDERSON: I'll waive.
MS. FILSON: Rich Y ovanovich?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The next one.
MS. FILSON: Next one?
Nancy Payton? She'll be followed by Amy Taylor. And Amy
only registered in case you had questions.
MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton representing the Florida Wildlife
Federation. I'm confused about Southern Golden Gate Estates' NRPA.
And on page 42, it says, for the privately owned lands within an
NRP A overlay and designated sending lands, and you've stricken the
reference to the Estates.
Words kind of -- I'm having trouble understanding how -- well,
there aren't any private lands in Southern Golden Gate Estates. All the
lands in Southern Golden Gate Estates are owned by the State of
Florida or are under contract by State of Florida.
Jesse Hardy's property is not in Southern Golden Gate Estates.
It's in the hole in the doughnut. And the Miccosukee land is outside
Southern Golden Gate Estates. But they were in the NRP A.
I guess I -- I don't know how lands in the Southern Golden Gate
Estates' NRP A, how conditional uses or permitted uses are going to be
handled.
MS. CHUMBLER: In the NRP A, they're handled like NRP A.
But could you tell me again what page number you're on? I'm not
177
June 8, 2004
finding it.
MS. PAYTON: Well, first it was brought up on page 42.
MS. CHUMBLER: Forty-three.
MS. PAYTON: Forty-three on yours, under natural resource
protection areas, where we've stricken Okaloacoochee Slough and
Camp Keais because they were interim and now they're stewardship
areas. And then it goes down -- in 1 through 3, there's no change, and
then number 4, there is --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Privately owned.
MS. PAYTON: -- striking of privately owned. But then you go
to the Golden Gate Master Plan and it talks -- it refers back to the
future land use element. Unless I'm totally --
MS. CHUMBLER: Well, in 5 we've stricken Estates because it's
not just Golden Gate -- it's not just Southern Golden Gate Estates. It's
the Estates generally.
MS. PAYTON: There isn't any NRP A in north --
MS. CHUMBLER: Well, it's not limited to the NRPA. For
privately owned land within an NRP A and designated sending lands
or Estates land. I mean, it was just unclear the way it was written.
And so now what we have -- now what we have is a provision
that says that those -- that Estates lands should be handled as provided
in the Golden Gate Master Plan. If you look over at the Golden Gate
Master Plan, it says that the Estates NRP A shall be subject to all the
same conditions that other NRP As are subject to.
MS. PAYTON: It seems a little confusing to me to bounce it
back and forth, but I'll try to go sit down and reflect on it. I'm still
unclear how certain things will be handled, how our public land's
handled in terms of uses.
MS. CHUMBLER: The public lands, I believe, are designated as
conservation.
MS. PAYTON: They're not in Southern Gold -- not in the
Southern Golden Gate Estates' NRPA. They ought to be. We could do
178
June 8, 2004
that today, or you could do that today. But no, they are NRP As.
MS. CHUMBLER: Then it would be handled as an NRPA.
MS. PAYTON: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Anderson has changed his mind and he
would like to speak now.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Request denied.
MR. ANDERSON: I'll be mercifully brief. I have the unusual
pleasure of speaking this afternoon on behalf of the Florida Wildlife
Federation and the Collier County Audubon Society, in addition to the
Bonita Bay Group.
You are amending and removing some language regarding the
county's possibly setting aside county money to establish a TDR bank.
We have no objection to the removal of that language; however, the
rural fringe TDR program is stalled and needs a jump-start if the
county is to realize the twin goals of preserving environmentally
sensitive lands and avoiding urban sprawl.
More than 20,000 acres in the rural fringe have been designated
as environmentally sensitive TDR sending lands, however, the
county's clearinghouse registry for TDR units has only 85 acres out of
a possible 20,000 listed.
We're requesting that you add as an item on your June 22nd
agenda a discussion of ways to jump-start the TDR program, including
specifically the establishment of a TDR bank as recommended by the
county's TDR consultant in his original report. Such a bank would be
funded by developers.
The groups that I speak on behalf of ask that you place it on that
agenda for discussion and direction so that any possible work could
commence while the board is on summer break. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I've had this discussion
with several people now. There seems to be concern with the fact that
very few people have stepped forward and offered their transfer
179
June 8, 2004
development credits for sale. I think part of the reason is the fact that
they don't feel secure enough in selling them at this point in time.
I'm not too sure if a bank's the answer, but I'm not opposed to it.
I originally wanted to look at it in the beginning. But I don't want to
strip the rights from people without them selling it.
We were talking about possibly looking at a workshop or -- that
we could have or an open meeting that we could have for the public
that's going to be affected, those people in the sending areas, and __
sometime in September. But I'm more than willing to approach the
subj ect, but I don't want to ever get to the point where we're going to
change anything from the willing seller program to something other
than that.
MR. ANDERSON: I agree.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So now we have finished with this
section. Is that it?
MS. CHUMBLER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So I think we --
MS. FILSON: Amy, are you all set?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We've heard from our public speakers.
MS. FILSON: I still have Amy Taylor. I don't know -- are you
all set?
MS. TAYLOR: All set.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. With that I will close the public
hearing.
And Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Anderson asked that we do
something, to put something on an agenda for next time. Do you think
it's appropriate that we at least get a sense of the commission as to
whether or not --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm in favor of it.
180
June 8, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Should we hold that maybe till we
get done with this, and then we'll come back and address that; do you
think?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We'll probably forget about it by
that time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are you referring to old age on this
board?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, we can couple that with this one,
and then we can clear them both up at the same time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Whatever you want to do. I
just didn't want to forget it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I think we should.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So now, we have -- there were a
couple minor changes that we've made throughout this reading. Do I
hear a motion to approve with those minor changes?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion to approve
with minor changes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coletta and a second by Commissioner Halas to
approve this section.
Do you have a section number for it or anything? No.
MR. MUDD: We'll just call this 2003-11, the glitch.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. 2003-11, the glitch.
MR. MUDD: Minus the wildlife policies, which you're going to
do on 8(C).
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do you have that? Okay. With the
small modified changes that we've added to this. And a second by
Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Halas.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- Halas, okay.
181
June 8, 2004
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to petItIon
CPSP-2003-12, future land use element and future land use map,
transportation element, conservation and coastal management element,
and the capital improvement element. The petition requesting
amendments to the FLUE and the FLUM, the transportation element,
the conservation and coastal management element, and the capital
improvement element to include, and then they're listed 1 through -- 1
through 6, and Mr. David Weeks will present.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's start off with the page
we're on.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Page 48.
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. For the record, David Weeks from
Comprehensive Planning Department. I'm on the eepe
recommendations document, page 55.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Page 55.
MR. WEEKS: The petition number's at the bottom of page 55,
but the actual amendments begin on page 55. The first one is under
the density rating system.
And as Ms. Chumbler did, Madam Chair, if it's all right with you,
I'll just walk through as briefly as possible the changes, if there's any
questions.
In the first paragraph we've simply added a couple of words. The
word housing was missing. The word provisions just makes it read
more correctly.
182
June 8, 2004
In the second paragraph at the bottom, at the end of that
paragraph, to be consistent with the land development code, we've
provided that in calculating densities, that we also exclude areas of a
project for which there is a residential density equivalency established.
An example would be a nursing home or an adult living facility,
so that when a proj ect comes before you for a rezoning, if they have a
commercial or industrial component, you don't include that in the
density calculation. Well, neither would you include land area
devoted to you, such as a nursing home or an ALF. And again, that's
to be consistent with the land development code.
In the next paragraph, this is some further clarification about
what types of dwelling units are accessory dwelling units, those that
would not be considered in calculating density, things such as a
cabana, guesthouse, things of that nature. And this, again, provides
consistency between the future land use element and the land
development code.
On the top of page 56, there's several lines that have been added.
This is to provide in one location and to make it convenient to the
reader of the future land use element, what are the exceptions to the
density provisions in the density rating system. As you know, when a
rezone petition comes before you, typically it is a rezone from an
agricultural zoning district to PUD or residential development.
And the density rating system guides you in determining what
the allowable density is, and, of course, you make the final decision of
what that density will be of the density bonuses, such as for affordable
housing or for residential infill, things of this nature, that will be
applicable.
But there's exceptions, as we've discussed in the past, including at
the EAR workshop. Policy 5.1 recognizes existing zoning. If
someone's already got a piece of property, for example, zoned
RMF-16, and they come in for a zoning change to change that, say, to
a PUD, they're not subject to the density rating system. They're any
183
June 8, 2004
exception to the rule.
This is clearly spelling out those exceptions to the rµle. Again,
for convenience of a reader of the element. This has been discussed
some on a couple of particular items, the Vanderbilt Beach
moratorium discussion, on that Wiggins Pass Marina rezoning, also
during the EAR workshop, this was discussed. The motion of these
exceptions, and, again, this is for clarity.
In the next paragraph under density bonuses, the stricken
language is just -- is taking out the reference to policy 5.1, which we
just added. In the section above we were just discussing one of those
exceptions.
Under conversion of commercial zoning, this is to make it clear
that there are -- the conversion of commercial zoning density bonus.
As the language presently reads, it would only be applicable to
properties zoned commercial that are not located within a mixed use
activity center or not within a PUD as part of a village center.
Well, there are several other exceptions. There are several
subdistricts that, over time, have been added to the future land use
element, and then subsequent properties have been rezoned to
commercial.
This is making it clear that those newly rezoned properties would
not be subj ect to this conversion provision.
This all goes back to when the plan was adopted in 1989, and the
county's intent was to provide this conversion bonus as an incentive to
a landowner to voluntarily rezone their property from commercial to
residential where that commercial is either in a strip commercial
pattern or is in an isolated location, both of which the county had a
desire to see changed.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Are we still doing that with 16 dwelling
units, but it didn't seem to work very well? I mean, we've got the
commercial in there, but we've never coupled it with dwelling units,
and that seems to have been a stumbling block here. Actually what
184
June 8, 2004
we've tried to encourage by giving them so many extra units has really
fallen flat.
MR. WEEKS: The provision has rarely been used. Only, I
think, two or maybe three times since the plan was adopted. As you
may recall, during your EAR workshop, you've actually directed us __
you've not yet adopted the EAR, but you've given us that direction if
we want to see this and other density bonus provisions deleted.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
MR. WEEKS: But in the meantime, this is still here, it's still in
effect in the plan. And, again, this is just, I would call it, a clarification
of intent.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So until we change the EAR, we can't
change this; is that what you're saying?
MR. WEEKS: Certainly you can. Madam Chair, if it's the
board's desire, if you want us to leave this density bonus provision
right now, we can do it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I mean, wouldn't it make more sense to
have them correspond, both say the same thing?
MR. WEEKS: I understand what you're saying, but--
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, the EAR report is to layout future changes
to the Growth Management Plan. And I would -- and I would
recommend that you get the EAR done and then make the change __
change vice (sic) making the change before your EAR is finally
updated by everybody, okay, with the Planning Commission and the
board after they hear that item. That isn't -- that isn't a foregone
conclusion because you had (sic) the workshop yet. It hasn't been
voted on.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I see. So then we actually can't change
this for another year after the EAR is done, right?
MR. MUDD: That's if you pass -- if it's voted on that that's what
you want to do when it comes before the Board of County
Commissioners, yes, ma'am, that's correct.
185
---_..-.__...~
June 8, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Margie?
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant
county attorney. I would have a -- somewhat of a concern at this
juncture to change anything that we've talked about in the EAR
because the law requires that you have appropriate and relevant data
and an analysis to support the amendment. And I have a concern that
staff may not have the appropriate data and analysis performed to
support the removal of something right now from the compo plan.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. 1'11 take your direction.
MR. WEEKS: The next -- next change is at the bottom of page
56. This is the Livingston Road/Eatonwood Lane commercial infill
subdistrict, and you might recall that there's been some discussion on
your agenda a couple of different times, and you specifical1y -- in
January you gave staff direction to delete -- initiate the amendment to
delete the requirement to have access to Eatonwood Lane. And that is
accomplished through this amendment.
In essence what it provides for is an access point -- a single
access point onto Livingston Road, and further that if and when an
agreement is reached between all the relevant parties to allow an
access point at the north end of the subdistrict up where the LaCosta
Apartments is located, that -- if that occurs, that that would be the only
access point al1owed.
Eatonwood Lane, as you may recal1, is at the southern end of the
subdistrict, so it's providing for a flip-flop of the location. But if there
is no agreement reached with the LaCosta Apartments and the other
parties to provide the access at the north end of the site, then
somewhere within that site they will have a single access point onto
Livingston Road.
I know you're going to have a registered speaker, Madam Chair,
that's going to want to address a related item to. this when we're
completed.
And that concludes the proposed changes to the future land use
186
June 8, 2004
element. There's just a few more.
Page 57 is the capital improvement element. In this policy, 1.1.2,
paragraph B in the sub numbers, this all pertains to when a petition
comes before the county, reviewing it for a significant impact upon
public facilities.
As Ms. Chumbler just went over on the previous matter, SRA
designations have been added. Well, we've included those here for
consistency, but we specifically have provided for conditional use
petitions to be added.
This language already provided for rezonings and future land use
element changes in some places, and we've added where we needed
to, future land use element to be consistent through the whole
paragraph here under this policy. But the most substantive change
here is adding conditional uses.
As a practical matter, staff has already been doing that. We've
already been coming before you for each conditional use petition and
identifying to you if there was a significant impact. This now puts it
into the policy where it needs to be.
And, again, we're almost finished. On page 58, under the -- I'm
going to jump to the second change. Under the transportation
element, policy 5.1, this is the same change that we were just
discussing under this capital improvement element on the previous
page.
The SRA designation application is added to be consistent with
the previous item Ms. Chumbler presented, and then specifically
adding conditional use petitions to be measured for their significant
impact.
And then the last item to bring to your attention is at the top of
the page under the capital improvement element, and then towards the
bottom of the page under the conservation and coastal management
element. Both of these policies read very similarly and they speak to
the density that is allowed within the coastal high hazard area.
187
June 8, 2004
As we have discussed under a couple of previous petitions that's
come before this board, including the Wiggins Pass Marina rezone,
we've seen where this language in these two policies refers to the
density in the coastal high hazard area being limited to four units per
acre as provided for in the future land use element; however, the
problem here is the future land use does not limit them to four units
per acre.
So these two policies have a cross-reference to the future land use
element that is incorrect. The staff recommendation is to change those
references to very clearly, simply state, the future land use element
determines what the density is in the coastal high hazard area.
I understand the board's position at the EAR workshop, and we
may yet be coming back to you to make changes to what that density
is. But in the meantime, the FLUE, future land use element, does
control what allowable density is. Staff's recommendation is to
change the language to be clear in that regard.
Planning Commission disagreed. They were unanimous in their
belief that the intent of these two policies might be to limit density to
four units per acre in the coastal high hazard area.
And based upon the past actions that this board has taken, I think
you are not in a unanimous position. I think some of you do agree
with the Planning Commission that, yes, the intent of these two
policies is to limit density to four units per acre, whereas, others of
you, via your vote to support the one rezone that failed to allow for a
density reversion, you were agreeing with the staff's position that they
don't limit it to four. The future land use element dictates what the
allowable density is. And by gosh, it allows more than four units per
acre. And that's it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would like to see this as four units
per acre, and I think that's if -- since you got direction from the
Planning Commission, I feel that's the direction that we should go on
188
June 8, 2004
this.
And I think we had a very in-depth discussion before on this
board, and I believe that a couple of commissioners that deal with high
coastal hazard area problems agree on this, and I think that's the
direction that -- what we gave staff to go on.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner Halas, I believe you're referring to
the EAR, a workshop discussion. And similar to what Mr. Mudd was
saying a few moments ago about a previous item, with all due respect,
I think we're getting the cart before the horse.
The first step to make substantive changes to specifically say in a
costal high hazard area, density is limited to whatever number that
may be, step one is to adopt the EAR, which directs -- shows the
county's intent to make changes to the plan. And then the next step
would be to bring those EAR based amendments to you in which
forum we would be presenting to you the coastal high hazard area
density will be capped at whatever units per acre.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And why was -- why was there
support for this then for the Planning Commission in regards to the
four units per acre?
MR. WEEKS: The Planning Commission believes that the
language was intended to limit the density to four units per acre;
therefore, they want to see no changes to this policy. And if you do
that, that will leave -- that will leave an area of discretion for you.
So the next time a rezone comes before you that is in a coastal
high hazard area, you will be able to interpret these policies one of
two ways, either, one, to say it does limit density to four units per
acre, or you'll have the discretion to say, no, I don't think that is what
it intends.
If you change the language the way staff is recommending, it will
very clearly provide that the future land use element determines what
the density is, which means it could be more than four units per acre.
So if you agree with Planning Commission, then your action
189
June 8, 2004
would be, staff, don't make any changes to these policies. We want
that discretion. If you agree with the staffs position, then your
recommendation will be to go along with staff.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what you're saying is we have a
glitch on top of a glitch here?
MR. WEEKS: In staffs opinion, we do have a glitch, yes, and
we're proposing to correct that glitch.
Planning Commission disagrees. They think, no, I think that was
intentional to have the language read the way it does.
Planning Commission believes that the discretion should be there
to interpret the policy to limit density to four units per acre. Staff just
disagrees. Staff believes that the language is a glitch, that it
erroneously cross-references what the future land use element states.
The future land use element does, in fact, provide for density bonuses
that are applicable to the coastal high hazard area.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't understand __
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't either.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't understand what's going on
here. If you had direction -- and what we're trying to do is fix the
problem. And it sounds to me like we've done -- nothing done (sic)
more than compound the problem.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, I think we need to separate the
discussion that we've had during the rezone petitions from the EAR
workshop.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Could I interject here?
MR. WEEKS: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, we only have one EAR every
seven years, yet we manage to change the GMP once every year
without any EAR present. Why can't we change it now?
MR. WEEKS: I think that would go back to what Ms. Student
was saying, is, do we have the adequate data and analysis to support
making a substantive change at this point.
190
June 8, 2004
MS. STUDENT: I'll state it again. The growth management
laws and rule 9J-5, which is part of that, requires that there be relevant
and appropriate data and a staff analysis of that data.
When you do something like lower density, I want to have that
data, because there's not only an issue with whether it comports with
the rule 9J-5 and chapter 163, but when you pass any ordinance, you
have to demonstrate a rational basis with the public health, safety, and
welfare.
Without appropriate data and analysis, I have a legal concern as
to where that -- how that rational basis can be demonstrated.
So there's two reasons; constitutional reasons on -- that we must
have this information to support changes we made, and chapter 163
and rule 9J-5 and compliance reasons. Not to say we can't do it.
We've got to have the support and the facts to do it, otherwise, we risk
a finding that it's arbitrary and capricious.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So why wouldn't we have the facts?
MR. WEEKS: At this point there's nothing in the information
before you that demonstrates that --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So in other words, if we don't transmit
this now and we wait until we get the facts, we can do it then?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct. And in fact, that's what we're
doing through the EAR process. Per your direction at the workshop in
May, we will be coming before you in July, again per your direction,
proposing to cap the density in the coastal high hazard area at four
units per acre. And within there, we will have that relevant data and
analysis to support that position.
We don't have it at hand today. It's not before you today. So
you'd be transmitting -- if you were going to take that action, you'd be
transmitting the change without any supporting information.
MR. MUDD: David, hang on for just a minute.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Wait a minute.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, just so you understand. The EAR
191
June 8, 2004
is a document that you do about once every 10 years, and it outlines
how you are going and the direction you're going to take to change the
Growth Management Plan over the next 10 years, not what you're
going to do in the next year and then you don't get to see it for 10. It's
your direction for 10 years, it's your focus, it's your guidelines that's
you're laying out there to staff and to the public to say how you're
going to change the Growth Management Plan over the next decade,
okay? It's not a one time only.
Commissioners, I understand what your -- what your problem is.
I would suggest, based on what I heard, that you leave it the way the
Planning Commission recommended, that you don't accept the staffs
changes to the policy --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, the Planning Commission
was opposite.
MR. MUDD: -- and so it gives you the ability, okay, in future
actions before you can change the Growth Management Plan a year or
so down the pike in keeping with what you talked about during your
workshop. It gives you the ability to limit your -- your particular
densities in the coastal high hazard area. And that's what the Planning
Commission -- if you leave it as written today without taking staffs
recommendation with changes, you'll have that ability.
If you make the staffs changes the way they're written, then you
give -- it clarifies it, makes it very definitive that there can be bonuses
in the coastal high hazard area above four units per acre.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me give it a try now.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All right, good.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you understand?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can't muddy this water any
more than it already is. I think I understand where we're going. The
way this is written at this point in time doesn't really change anything,
correct?
192
June 8, 2004
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And as far as the
affordable housing element in the coastal high hazard area, it has
nothing to do with it?
MR. WEEKS: That is correct, under either version, either staffs
or Planning Commission, that is correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So at this point in time I don't
think we have to react with our particular positions because there's no
need for it. We can address this at a later time when it comes up.
I've got to be honest with you, Mr. Weeks, you're very
knowledgeable about the subject matter you're talking about, but I
think you're leaving us behind very quickly at this last little
dissertation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Any further comments?
Okay.
MR. WEEKS: Madam Chair, just to conclude this point. As a
housecleaning matter from staffs perspective, if you don't make the
change, if you concur with the Planning Commission, no harm, no
foul. It will leave you with discretion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do we have any speakers on this
subj ect?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. I have three speakers on this one.
Rich Yovanovich. He will be followed by Doug Fee, and then
Donna Reed Caron.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich. I'll be honest with you, I don't know what page this is
on. This is my page 55 based on what was in your executive
summary, but it's under the heading of the Livingston
Road/Eatonwood Lane commercial infill subdistrict. Page 56?
MR. WEEKS: Page 56.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There is one -- this is the project near
Kensington. It's the Hiwasse PUD that's winding its way through the
193
June 8, 2004
process right now, and we went to the Planning Commission for our
rezone petition.
And at that time it was discovered that what I had thought was
part of the compo plan as an allowable use, which will be financial
institutions, which are in your C-l zoning district, which is your office
district, was not what staff believed was consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
Since we were going through the process now of clarifying this
subdistrict, the Planning Commission recommended, based upon my
request, that we clarify in the subdistrict that we can have financial
institutions as a pennitted use in this subdistrict.
It was -- it's basically an ambiguity that David believes we're not
allowed to have banks. I felt we were allowed to have banks. It
seems to me from a planning perspective, nobody's objecting to
having banks. So I'm simply recommending that we add, in the third
line down after the word office, you would put a comma, and then
financial institution, and then in parentheses, SIC code 6011 to 6099,
and then you would end the parentheses, and then you'd continue on
with, and indoor self-storage.
That use was approved by the Planning Commission as part of
the rezone petition that's going through subject to the comprehensive
plan being amended to allow that use. I think Mr. Weeks is okay with
adding that -- those uses, and we would ask that that be added to the
subdistrict as part of this process.
If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas does.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Wasn't the idea of eliminating the
banks because there wouldn't be enough warrants for a stoplight for
that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. Actually what the Planning
Commission recommended was that we would have the banks at the
time that the stoplight came about.
194
,."---
June 8, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If -- when the stoplight came
about?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, and there's a --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: When the stoplight came about.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And that's part of the zoning
which you will see later on. But we can't ask for the bank unless we
specifically change the language in the Eatonwood subdistrict to allo\v
financial institutions. Planning Commission thought that financial
institutions were fine with the condition that we couldn't have it until
the traffic light came about.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The warrants issued it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Assuming -- yeah. Assuming at some
point there's going to be enough traffic out there to warrant a traffic
light, then we would do it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You okay with that? Everybody's okay?
Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That was it. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Doug Fee.
MR. WEEKS: Madam Chair, if I could just put on the record
that staff does not object to the change that Mr. Y ovanovich has
proposed. One caveat, he mentioned the SIC codes, and he gave a
pretty broad range, 6011 to 6099. Between transmittal and adoption,
staff would just like to take a look and see what all those uses include.
Potentially we may be okay with it or we may want to narrow that
down somewhat. But conceptually, we're--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So you don't know what these --
the codes that he just spelled out to you, you don't know what it
covers?
MR. WEEKS: We know it includes banks, but banks have a
very broad --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Wait a minute.
MR. WEEKS: -- definition. I mean, there's all sorts of different
195
June 8, 2004
types of depository institutions.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It is exactly the finan -- this is exactly
from the C-1 districts. They're the codes that are specifically allowed
in the C-I zoning district. And what they are, are banks, savings __
they don't call them savings and loans, but savings institutions, credit
unions. They're those types of uses.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you have a specific lists of
those right now with you?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: They actually are the 6011 through the
6099 category, because they break each one of those out into separate
SIC codes, and they're already -- they're already allowed uses in the
C-I zoning district.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Could we ever just say financial
institutions rather than all of those different codes?
MR. WEEKS: We could. I know Mr. Yovanovich, when we
chatted in the hall, one of the potential concerns would be that if there
are changes over time in what the land development code allows or
potential for interpreting, if you say financial institutions alone, there
might be some other type of use that falls within that category that,
perhaps, we decide is not appropriate.
He was just trying to be, as he said, narrow it right down to what
the C-I zoning district allows, which is our lowest intensity office
commercial zoning district.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Next speaker, please.
MS. FILSON: Doug Fee.
MR. FEE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my
name is Doug Fee. I'm with the North Bay Civic Association, and I'm
here to comment on the changes being suggested for 1.3.2 and 12.2.2.
And we had just gone through that with David Weeks.
And the North Bay Civic is certainly in support of your Planning
Commission who unanimously said to leave the language in those two
policies as is.
196
June 8, 2004
We do feel that those are important policies. They do limit the
density to four units, and obviously we're -- we've been interested in
the EAR process in the guidance that you've given.
We do realize that there'll be some changes to the FLUE, the
density rating system, but we feel that if you make the change to these
two policies today knowing that in the future you'll be making the
changes to the FLUE area, that there'll be a period of time where you
may be actually increasing the density.
Obviously those decisions would be up to you, but it may be -- it
may be tougher to limit density if that policy is changed today.
So we support the Planning Commission and leaving it as is and
I'll leave it at that. Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Donna Reed Caron.
MS. CARON: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is
Donna Reed Caron, and I am here to also support the Planning
Commission. Unanimously, they said that they did not want the CIE
1.32 or the CCME 12.2.2 changed at this time.
I think they recognize that we are going through a process, and
now is not the time to be making these changes to the number of units
per acre.
I think earlier today everybody here was real -- really concerned
if they granted some funds to the Shelter For Abused Women And
Children that you would get a rush of other people who also wanted
money. Well, I submit to you that if you change this policy, you will
get a rush of people wanting more density in the coastal high hazard
area, and that is not what this board has been about. And thank you
for your time.
MS. FILSON: She's the final speaker on this issue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. With that, I will close the public
hearing.
Commissioners, do you have any comments, suggestion,
questions?
197
June 8, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I still think we ought to go along
with what the Planning Commission recommended.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I agree. Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I disagree.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I've got a chance to tie this up,
haven't I?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, you do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The boy from the city gets the
chance to do it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think the Planning Commission
gave it a lot of thought, and I'll stick with it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So we have a 3-1 on that, okay?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's all right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You're a good guy.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll get you next time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So now we have to have a motion
on this particular agenda item.
MR. MUDD: And what I've -- what I've seen on CPSP-2003-12
is that you want to make the change to the Eatonwood Lane and put in
financial institutions with certain SIC codes, as Mr. Y ovanovich
talked about.
I will tell you that in the PUD that those particular hours of
operation are limited, okay? So -- just so you know, Commissioner
Coy Ie, I've seen those documents, and you want to go with the
Planning Commission's recommendation on not modifying the two
policies in the coastal high hazard area.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Is Mr. Y ovanovich still
here? Yes.
Okay. You brought up a good point. I'd just like to clarify
something. It's my understanding that you've been meeting with the
residents in Kensington about allowing uses there. It's my
198
June 8, 2004
understanding also that they have agreed not to oppose the financial
institution use there under certain circumstances; is that -- is that
essentially correct?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And we had moved -- just so you
know, we had moved the financial -- in the zoning, the financial
institution is on the northern boundary where, hopefully, we're going
to have the new LaCosta Road. So they have spoken in favor of that
location.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, nothing we're doing
here is going to interfere in that mutual agreement; is that correct?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, if you do not add financial
institutions, it would interfere with that agreement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But if we add financial institutions,
the Kensington residents have said to you they will not oppose that
use --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: under certain circumstances,
right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct, correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that -- there's nothing here that
will violate that agreement or that desire on the part of the Kensington
residents?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So -- may I have motion? Pardon
me?
MR. WEIGEL: Why don't you make a motion. You had a
consensus. Pardon me. You had --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Didn't I -- didn't I close the public
hearing?
MR. WEIGEL: You closed the public hearing. It sounded like
you kind of took a consensus, but you didn't make a formal motion.
199
June 8, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I'll make a motion that we
follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission on those two
items.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I better just close the public hearing again
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think you did.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- in case I didn't do it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You did that just now:
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I thought you did.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, now I officially close the public
hearing. I thought I did, too.
Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I make a motion that we
stay with the recommendation of the Planning Commission on the two
items in regards to coastal high hazard area.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll second that.
MR. WEEKS: Would that include the change by Mr.
Y ovanovich as well?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Adding financial institutions and the SIC
codes, uh-huh.
Okay. Do we have any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did you get a second?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I seconded.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Getting to be
a long day.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
200
June 8, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You're opposed? Okay, fine. We have a
3-1 on that.
And now, Commissioners, I was thinking maybe we ought to
break for half an hour. You have some food back there; is that
correct?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I hope so. I don't know if it's there
yet or not.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do you want to break for a half an hour
and grab something to eat or --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We've got some people waiting.
Can we take care of maybe one or two subj ects that -_
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: We just have three more, all of which are brief,
for these comprehensive plan amendments under 8(B), and then under
8(C) is also a short one, if you'd indulge us for 15 minutes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: How are you doing?
THE COURT REPORTER: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You're okay with that? Okay.
MR. WEEKS: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, this brings us to capital
improvement element, CIE, petition requesting amendments to the
capital improvement element to update the schedule of capital
improvements table of costs and revenues, and to add level of service
standards for government buildings.
MR. SWEAT: Thank you. I will be brief. For the record, Jason
Sweat, Collier County Planning.
With this petition staff would like to request your approval of two
minor amendments to the capital improvements element, the first
being the addition of language recognizing the new impact fee for
201
June 8, 2004
government buildings.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Tell us what page you're on, sir.
MR. SWEAT: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you tell us what page you're
on?
MR. SWEAT: I'm not on a page.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that would put you on page --
MR. SWEAT: Fifty-nine or 60, I believe. I'm sorry.
CPSP-2003-13.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Fifty-eight.
MR. MUDD: It's on mine, 57.
MR. SWEAT: My 58.
MR. MUDD: But it might be -- it might be on your 58.
MR. SWEAT: Again, two additions to the capital improvement
element. The first, adding language recognizing the impact fee for
government buildings, and the second being replacing the previous
five-year schedule of capital improvements with our updated version.
This board has already approved both of these items, both the
level of service impact fee for government buildings of 1.9 square feet
per resident, and also the annual updated inventory report through a
workshop that was conducted in December of 2003.
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve, and
staff would like to request the same.
MS. FILSON: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have two speakers? Okay. Would
you call the public speakers, please.
MS. FILSON: Bruce Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: I'm here to speak on the reclassification of a
road, which, I think, is another --
MS. FILSON: Is this 2003-13 or 14?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am, 13.
MR. MUDD: Thirteen.
202
June 8, 2004
MS. FILSON: Okay. The speakers are for 14.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion for --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- we have no speakers?
MS. FILSON: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Let me close the public hearing,
then, okay?
And Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion we approve the
CP -- or pass on the -- for transmittal of CPSP-2003-13.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Halas, a second by Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next petition,
which is CPSP-2003-14, which is the transportation element, petition
requesting amendments to the transportation element to revise the
functional classification of various county and state roads. And that
would be either on page 59 of your particular book, or 60.
MR. SCOTT: Essentially -- Don Scott, transportation planning __
updated the functional class consistent with the new census data and
new roadways since the last time.
1998 was the previous update, but if you look at some of the
roadways that are identified in there, it was really older than that. It
was back to like 1992.
203
June 8, 2004
Use different criteria such as traffic volume, speed limits, future
volumes area type land uses, connectivity, trip lengths, and spacing
between routes to determine what should be arterials, collectors, and
local roads.
I don't have anything specific. I guess there's a few speakers on
the issue if you have any questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you call the speakers?
MS. FILSON: Bruce Anderson. He will be followed by Tony
Pires.
MR. ANDERSON: In anticipation -- my name is Bruce
Anderson. I want to address the issue of the reclassification of Collier
Boulevard, which is the matter that Mr. Pires will also be speaking to.
I support the staff position. The widening of Collier Boulevard
from Immokalee Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road and beyond is
scheduled to commence next year. This Collier Boulevard is
classified as an arterial road in the county's access management plan,
so it would be consistent to label it in that manner in the
comprehensive plan. That road also serves as a major hurricane
evacuation route. This amendment simply and formally recognizes
the obvious.
And I think the next speaker that you have will try to attack a
rezoning that you will have coming before you in a few weeks, and I
think he's going to try to abort that. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Tony Pires.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
MR. PIRES: Tony Pires representing the Vanderbilt Community
Association, Inc., the residents and property owners of Vanderbilt
Country Club.
Unfortunately this time of year, about 75 -- 70 percent of the
people are out of town. And Mr. Anderson is trying to steal my
204
June 8, 2004
thunder, but not entirely. I guess this particular amendment -- I do
have a concern -- my clients do have an objection to reclassifying that
portion of 951, Collier Boulevard, between Vanderbilt Beach Road
and Immokalee Road.
My understanding is from communications with -- my clients
have had with county staff, is that segment is programmed to be
widened beginning the Spring of 2005 and be completed in 2007.
At that time that segment will, in fact, be an arterial. To classify
it as an arterial before it is one is premature. The reason why Mr.
Anderson is so concerned is that two weeks from now you-all have a
rezoning before you in Nagel-Craig Business Park, about a half mile __
quarter mile north on the west side of 951 north of Vanderbilt Beach
Road.
And my client, Vanderbilt Country Club, is a half mile north of
Vanderbilt Beach Road on the east side of 951. They want to have a
business park PUD. The comprehensive plan requires that that be
located on an arterial; therefore, that application is inconsistent with
the comprehensive plan as it exists today.
Our position then will be it should not even be heard. It should
be continued until such time and unless such time the functional
classification of 951 from Vanderbilt Beach Road north to Immokalee
Road is made arterial. It is premature in two respects then. This
change should not occur. We don't believe there's a need for it at the
present time and their rezoning application -- we'll get into that at a
later time, two weeks now -- is premature and should not even be
heard by this board.
It's a lot of unintended consequences, so it's not just a
transportation context we're talking about. You have then affected the
ability for people to get different types of land uses by, now, that road
being classified as arterial.
By way of example, the staff has indicated in the staff report for
the rezoning that as it exists right now, that rezoning application is
205
June 8, 2004
inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, because it's only -- Collier
Boulevard in this segment is classified only as a collector roadway.
And as a result, the GMP would prohibit the rezoning at this
time. So by the transmittal and subsequent adoption, if that occurs, of
this roadway segment to arterial, not only do you have transportation
issues, you have land use and developmental issues, and, therefore, we
would request that segment from VBR and north to Immokalee Road
not be reclassified now. Wait until the time is right for that to occur
and then do it. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Mr. Scott, right now this
road is classified as a collector road or arterial?
MR. SCOTT: That's correct, yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: As a collector. And this move
to make it an arterial is specifically designed for this one project?
MR. SCOTT: No. It's the way it's functioning right now. I put it
in there as a minor arterial. I actually looked at the future as being a
principal arterial when it's all, you know, connected from up into Lee
County in the future, it's projected to be. But as of right now, it
operates as a minor arterial, and that's why I put it __
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it actually does, or would
this be something that we might be best off continuing and handling at
a time when we get closer to that date?
MR. SCOTT: I mean, I can come back later, but the issue is that
-- you know, they're raising one issue with Collier Boulevard. I did
the same thing with Vanderbilt Beach Road as a minor arterial also.
It's still two lanes. It will be under construction fairly soon. I'm
looking at it as what is programmed within the next two years. And
both of those roadways are.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Feder, do you have
anything you want to add to this?
Welcome back, by the way. We missed you.
206
June 8, 2004
MR. FEDER: Thank you, Commissioners. Good to be back.
Just for the record, Nonnan Feder, transportation administrator.
I would just add that when you're setting up functional
classification, you're trying to look at what the need for that roadway
is and what it should be servicing in the future.
You have within the first two years that construction, as was
noted. It is functioning, at the very least, as a minor arterial. The
question was whether or not it was a major or minor arterial. We
decided, until more of the work was done, to establish it as a minor
arterial and let that be addressed in the future.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So if I may finish up.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This particular thing, if we go
ahead and we say this road's a minor arterial, can we define it that
way, or is it just arterial?
MR. FEDER: It's defined as minor arterial. It's one of your
classifications for the functional class.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's what we're doing by
what we have in front of us now?
MR. FEDER: What you have in front of you --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. FEDER: -- is the proposal.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The concern that we're hearing
out there is not so much the fact that, the naming of the road. It's just
that it allows for a certain use across from Vanderbilt Country Club,
and that would prohibit the use before they could come to be heard.
I really don't have a problem with this being named an arterial
with the idea that when this comes before us, Nagel Business Park, we
can -- we can judge that on its own merits without -- with or without
the road.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Have you closed the public
207
June 8, 2004
hearing?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because I'm gOIng to make a
motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh. Do we have any speakers -- any
remaining speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Then I will close the public hearing.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Coyle, a second by Commissioner Coletta.
And Commissioner Halas is on deck.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. The only concern I have is
that -- and I'd like to have this question asked (sic). We know that the
road is going to be expanded to a major arterial road. So just for
clarification for myself, at what time do we make -- what time in the
program do we say that this is a major arterial road? Before
construction starts, in the midterm of construction, or upon
completion?
MR. SCOTT: Well, I was looking more at -- from an aspect of
not only when you widen it, you're going to carry more traffic as it
builds over time.
I looked at 2003 and then at 2005. It will be much quicker than
that in the sense that, you know, when is the section from, say,
Immokalee into Lee County developed? I would look at it as a
principal arterial more so at that time. But it may be prior to that
depending on, you know, higher volumes, issues like that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. We're talking about
expanding it in Collier County sometime in 2006; is that correct?
208
June 8, 2004
MR. SCOTT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: From--
MR. SCOTT: Two lanes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- Vanderbilt Beach Road?
MR. SCOTT: From actually Golden Gate Boulevard to
Immokalee from two to six lanes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right. So just for clarification.
When do you classify that as a major arterial road for that segment of
the highway, upon completion, partway through, or before we even
start construction on it?
MR. SCOTT: No. I'm talking about a minor arterial now.
Principal arterial would be sometime in the future when it serves the
type of volumes and other things that would make it a principal
arterial. And I don't -- I can't tell you exactly when that is.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But is it upon completion of that
segment of the road that it becomes a principal arterial?
MR. SCOTT: Possibly, because of traffic and other issues, it
could be, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I was just trying to get some
clarification for my --
MR. FEDER: Don, make sure I say this correctly.
Commissioner, I think what you're asking for is -- there's a
number of things you look at in setting your functional classification
on a roadway. If it, in fact, is serving a multi county or more regional
basis, that would make it more of a principal arterial.
So if that event comes about, you would probably move from
minor arterial to principal arterial fairly quickly. If that event doesn't
come about, one of your other criteria is the nature of the volume and
number of lanes.
Once you go to six lanes, if that volume increases to a point, even
if it doesn't go into Lee County, you may well be asked to bring it up
to principal arterial. So it's not just on the construction. It's on the
209
June 8, 2004
volume and its overall interconnectivity and function within the
network.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what I was trying to get at, I
guess, is the volume that -- when you -- where would you decide the
impact of the road as far as if you were looking at projects that were
coming up or whatever else?
MR. SCOTT: For a principal arterial, I'm looking around 40,000
vehicles per day.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. SCOTT: And right now it's carrying about 22. Now, when
it gets six lanes, it will be a while before it gets to that point. But if
you drive up it now, you'd notice it doesn't look like it's going to be
that long either.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You answered my question.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Before you go, this will also
help in our effort to eventually get the road expanded probably to
Bonita Beach Road if we recognize it now.
MR. SCOTT: I hope so.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do we have a motion on the floor.
I've already --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, you do.
MR, MUDD: Yes, you do. You have a motion and a second,
ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You made the motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Coletta seconded.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second from Coletta.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
Any further discussion?
All those --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it passed unanimously.
210
June 8, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, we didn't.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: Next petition is C --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, I think we need a lO-minute
break. I know this -- but our court reporter has been going on for two
hours now, and she usually likes to go every hour and a half. Let's
give her a 10-minute break.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's the rule.
(A brief recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Will you all take your seats.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: We have one item left on this particular one, on
8(B), okay, and that is CPSP-2003-15, which is a petition requesting
phase II amendments of the Community Character/Smart Growth
Advisory Committee to amend the future land use element, Golden
Gate Area Master Plan, and Immokalee Area Master Plan, to
implement the Community Character Plan by promoting
pedestrian-oriented, human-scale development and interconnection of
neighborhoods and development.
MR. SWEAT: Thank you. For the record, Jason Sweat, Collier
County Planning.
Through this petition, we would like to request approval of these
community character/smart growth amendments to the future land use
element. I am on my page 61, CPSP-2003-15.
What we'd handed out to you during the break was an
211
June 8, 2004
amendment to one of the policies. You currently -- policy 7.2 makes
some references to PUDs; however, the addendum that we passed out
to you changes that policy somewhat and makes it a little more broad.
If you have any questions on that, I can answer it.
We have been -- staff has been working with the Community
Character/Smart Growth Committee for the last few years on making
some changes to either the comprehensive plan and/or the land
development code, and we feel this is a good beginning. As a result, I
would like to ask your approval of objective 7, policy 7.1 through
policy 7.6, as an addendum to the future land use element.
MR. MUDD: And, Commissioner, CPSP-2003-15, you received
a special sheet while you were away. And objective number 7 says, in
an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward
Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County,
Florida, promote smart growth smart policies and adhere to the
existing development character of Collier County, the following
policies shall be implemented for new development and
redevelopment projects where applicable.
Policy 7.1, the county shall encourage developers and property
owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial
roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating
intersection spacing requirements of the land development code.
Policy 7.2, all new and existing developments shall be
encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection
points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless
of land use type.
Policy 7.3, the county shall encourage new developments to
provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common
open spaces, civic facilities, and a range of housing prices and types.
Policy 7.4, the county shall encourage mixed, use development
within the same buildings by allowing residential dwelling units over
and/or adjacent to commercial development. This policy shall be
212
June 8, 2004
implemented through provisions in specific subdistricts.
Policy 7.5, the county shall explore the creation of an urban
"greenway" network along existing major canal banks and power line
easements.
Policy 7.6, Community Development and Environmental
Services Division will continue to research smart growth practices in
an effort to improve the future of Collier County by specifically
addressing land use and transportation planning techniques for
inclusion in future land development regulations, and that's the end of
that one.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have any speakers on this item?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. The public hearing is closed on
this particular item, which is --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- CPSP-2003-15, and I have a motion to
approve by Commissioner Coletta, a second by Commissioner Halas.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Perhaps this is implied, but it's a
little hard to dig it out of policy 7.1 and 7.2. But it seems to me that
one of the things we were trying to do through the concept of
interconnectivity was to encourage developers to use access roads to
permit access to commercial properties and thereby discourage so
many individual access points to collectors and arterial roads.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, perhaps, if you take policy
7.1 and 7.2 and read those in conjunction, you might reach that
conclusion, but it would be awfully convoluted. And I'd just like to
try to get a clarification. Isn't it true that what we were looking for --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
213
~m_..> . IT
June 8, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- is to try to get access roads so
that we minimize the number of connection --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- points to arterials.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But in policy 7.2, Commissioner,
doesn't it state there, interconnection points with adjoining
neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. But here's the problem.
You can connect to an adjoining neighborhood without having an
access road. F or example, there are a couple of circumstances where
we've asked for and we have gotten connection with a neighborhood,
but the neighborhood puts up a gate because they only want their
neighborhood members to be able to go in and out. But what I'm
thinking more of is -- are access roads like Naples Boulevard at the
intersection -- well, in the quadrant, northwest quadrant of Pine Ridge
Road and Airport Road.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Or like loop roads.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, loop roads. Naples
Boulevard was built primarily to permit access to all the commercial
units in there, but yet what really happened was, a lot of them
developed accesses onto Airport Road and Pine Ridge Road, and thus
you have a lot of congestion.
So I'm asking the question. Is that something that we want to do?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Maybe what we need to do is have
a little better clarification on policy 7.1.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that's where we -- the
county shall encourage developers and property owners to connect
their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads. And I think the
language has to be changed and it has to be a little stronger to indicate
that in order to get something approved, that there's going to have to
be a working relationship. You see where we're going with this?
214
June 8, 2004
MR. SWEAT: Absolutely. And if I may, I believe one reason
we left these somewhat general is so that in the future in working with
the Community Character/Smart Growth Committee, our goal or our
intent is to get into the land development regulations and somewhat
shore up, if you will, the county's efforts to promote smart growth and
smart growth strategies.
So that mayor may not be something we can address in our land
development regulations. I know that the committee is committed to
adding such language to our land development code. When that's
going to happen, I can't say.
The committee is scheduled to sunset in -- I believe a year from
now, and this is something I believe we can address in the interim;
however, it's up to the board if you'd like to see some changes in the
current language that we've got.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would like to see some specific
language to access roads. All we've talked about are connecting
properties to the collector and arterial roads in 7.1. And, of course, we
have to provide access to collector and arterial roads, but wouldn't it --
wouldn't it be nice if we had an access road that was a collector that
took you to a signalized intersection with the arterial?
And that's where I would like to go with this thing, is to make
specific mention of access roads that are interconnected as opposed to
just an access road that is -- has limited use in functionality.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're talking of an addition,
not to change something where we eliminate something?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No problem.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because we've gotten ourselves in
a real bind here where we have too many access roads to a main
arterial road, and then the next thing you know, everybody wants a
stoplight, and that really ends up causing a lot of traffic congestion.
So what we're trying to do, I think -- and I think you got the
215
June 8, 2004
message, that we're trying to make sure that a lot of properties -- it's
like a loop road or a road that's adjacent to a main arterial road with
one access point onto that arterial road.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think that -- yes. We've been striving all
along here to improve interconnectivity as well as access -- access
roads and limit the access roads onto the major thoroughfare, so --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what we can do on policy 7.1 is we
can add a sentence to the bottom of that paragraph that talks about
access/loop roads that are interconnecting to minimize signalization on
the arterials and whatnot.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That will do it for me.
MR. MUDD: We'll get that in there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's in my motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So the motion on the floor is
including the addition to policy number 7.1.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And my second reflects that
addition.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Okay. All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So that is a 4-0.
MR. WEEKS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Now, what we're going to do is, we're going to skip around the
agenda just a little bit. We have some people out here that have been
waiting all day and some that have already spoken that are still here.
We have 1 O( C) -- a couple of these are going to go very quickly.
216
June 8, 2004
10(C) --
MR. MUDD: 10(C) is--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- 10(G), then 8(C) so that the people
from -- that know -- don't leave yet, Nancy. You're going to be on
8(C), right?
MS. PAYTON: I can't stick around. I don't know how long
you're going to be.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And then 10(B).
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You've got a roast in the oven,
huh?
MS. PAYTON: A dog.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: A dog in the oven?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: A dog in the oven.
Item #1 OC
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE ATTACHED
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE FOR ACQUISITION
OF THE FORMER ARTHREX, INC. BUILDING AND EXPENSES
ASSOCIATED WITH IT PURCHASE, NECESSARY
RENOVATIONS, AND RELOCATION OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OFFICES FROM LEASED FACILITIES AT A TOTAL
COST NOT TO EXCEED $6,309,000 - CONTINUE ITEM TO THE
~G-AEEROVED
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, item 10(C) is a recommendation to
approve the attached agreement for sale and purchase for acquisition
of the former Arthrex, Inc., building and expenses associated with its
purchase, necessary renovations and relocation of transportation
division offices from leased facilities at a total cost not to exceed
$6,309,000.
217
June 8, 2004
Mr. Norman Feder will present. This particular item was pulled
at Commissioner Coyle's request.
MR. STRAKALUSE: Actually, County Manager Mudd,
Norman Feder has stepped out, so I'll be presenting, and I'll do my
best to do that. Currently --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I save you some trouble?
MR. STRAKALUSE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I mean, we've read the executive
summary and we understand the staff is trying to move to a position of
purchasing property rather than continually leasing it, because you
have good reason to believe that it's less expensive for the government
to do that.
In this particular case, a constituent, it turns out to be one of my
constituents, is currently the owner of the buildings that we occupy
now, and they are leasing that property to the government. And they
have brought to my attention that their buildings might be for sale.
And I would merely like to have the government have the
opportunity to evaluate the proposal to see if it is more advantageous
to the government to proceed. So that is primarily the reason I pulled
it, is not to disapprove a purchase, but merely to provide an alternative
that you might be able to evaluate. And if --
MR. MUDD: I believe -- I believe, if the board so chooses, if
you'd like to continue this item until the next meeting so staff has the
opportunity to meet with the present owners of the building that we're
renting from in order to determine the sales price or any kind of a
negotiated agreement, and then we'll come back to the board and let
you know how it turns out.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what I'd like to do. And is
there -- I don't know if you need to make a presentation, you need to
talk to us about that at all, but if the board would be willing to do that,
I think an evaluation of alternatives is in the best interest --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
218
June 8, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- of everyone.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion--
MS. FILSON: Are we going to skip the speakers?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- on the floor by Commissioner Coyle to
MS. FILSON: Are we going to skip the speakers then?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Apparently--
MR. MUDD: Just ask them if they waive.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think they've waived.
MR. MUDD: Call them.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think they've waived.
MS. FILSON: Doug DeCaster.
MR. DeCASTER: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Our speakers have waived. And
so we have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coyle then to
continue this to another meeting until staff has time to work with the
owners of the different properties and then present us with a new
recommendation, and I have a second by Commissioner Coletta.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that is a 4-0. Okay.
Item #10G
APPROVE TWO (2) TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY "C-
2" GRANT APPLICATIONS AND TWO (2) TOURISM
AGREEMENTS FOR NAPLES BOTANICAL GARDEN AND THE
219
,.-.--.,.-.-
June 8, 2004
CONSERVANCY OF SW FLORIDA FORA TOTAL AMOUNT OF
$317,650 FOR FY 05 - MOTION FAILED FOR A LACK OF
MAlQRITY A-eEROVED
Now we go on to 8(G) (sic).
MR. MUDD: And that is the two TDC items, and that has to do
with approve the tourist development category C- 2 grant applications
and two tourism agreements for Naples Botanical Gardens and the
Conservancy of Southwest Florida for a total amount of $317,650 for
the FY-'05 budget, and this item was pulled by Commissioner
Henning and Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. May I?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure, please.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What I'd like to do is to hold off
a decision on this item until we can deal with the museum element to
the whole thing, so that we don't find ourselves not taking -- being
able to take care of our own museum.
I believe they're going to be -- Tourist Development Council will
be meeting before we have our next meeting. We could take it up at
that time, or the budget hearing in July, whatever.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So you want to postpone these grants
because of the museum?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I want to -- I want to --
we're asking for money from our tourist development.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And I want to hold it up
until we can hear what we need as far as the museums go, our own
museums. What's happened was is that this has been moved forward
by the Tourist Development Council, but meanwhile they held up on
approving the museum's budget for the simple -- because they wanted
to have a little more information. And I really think in order to be
able to consider how we're going to be using this money, we need to
220
-...---,-...-.'^
June 8, 2004
be able to know both elements at the same time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have any speakers on this subject?
MS. FILSON: I have two speakers. Sondra Quinn.
MS. QUINN: It was whether you had questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So she's --
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Joe Cox.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Same thing. You're here just to answer
questions; is that it?
MR. COX: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Personally, I would like to see the
funding go forward. I'm all in favor of funding the museums as well.
But I am in favor of moving this forward. The TDC had voted
unanimously, and I would like to see it moved forward. So I make a
motion to approve as recommended.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor from
Commissioner Fiala, a second by Commissioner Coyle.
Any -- any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, please. Just, once again,
we can never retract what we did, but we can always put it off and
make the decision one meeting later, and we'll still have the same
effect. But with that, I have nothing else to add.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, I want to see funding for the
museums, too. I don't the want to see that go by the wayside. I don't
want to see these dollars be taken from the museums, but cut these
dollars back anyway, I would like to see the museums funded also, but
I don't want to see these go unfunded.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I wouldn't wish them to go
unfunded either, but I do think that we need to have everything in
front of us at the time we make a decision. You know, I'm not saying
I'm not to fund it. I'm just saying, it would be great to have everything
in front of us at the same time.
221
June 8, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Maybe it'll go easier once we have them
separated.
So I have a motion on the floor and a second. Motion on the
floor by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor, say aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So we have a 2-2 on that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to continue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor to continue
by Commissioner Coletta --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- and a second by Commissioner Halas.
Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed? Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a 2-2 on that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's get a compromise here. Tell
me what is the concern about the museum funding.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for asking. There's a
big concern, because there's been -- there's been considerable
competition between the two entities for some time. And last year, if
I'm not mistaken, the museum had to take some money out of the
general funds and they still didn't have enough to operate with.
They're in serious competition with these outside entities. This was
222
June 8, 2004
something that was put together some time ago.
I think that we need to take care of our own responsibilities first
before we reach out to the next level.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. But may I add here, the reason that
there is -- there might have seemed to be competition is, not from us,
but from -- the TDC felt that these two entities did more to attract
visitors than our own museum system. And, of course, it hasn't been
-- you know, it's been years since the TDC has been fighting the
museum system. And I don't say rightfully so, I just -- I'm just stating
for the record that they have been.
I think our museum system is becoming better and better. I don't
think that this will -- this will allow them to look any kinder on the
museum system, quite frankly.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have some concerns. I think,
originally, some years ago there was talk that the Naples Botanical
Garden (sic) was going to become pretty much self-sufficient by
outside donations, and I haven't seen where that's really taken -- really
taken root.
And so I'm concerned because I think -- as Commissioner Coletta
said, I'm concerned about making sure that we have proper funding for
the mus -- for the only -- county's own museums. So that's where I'm
coming from.
I remember some time ago, even before I became on -- a
commissioner on this board, there was discussion by this board by
other commissioners in regards to the funding for the Botanical
Garden (sic). And I believe at that time there was talk that within a
certain period of time, that it was going to be self-funding or
self-sufficient.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And they've cut it back, by the way,
almost a half already. Each year, they've cut it back, instead of the
half a million that they had originally decided on.
223
-----
June 8, 2004
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. They are making a lot of
progress. And, quite frankly, we have been responsible for some of
the slowness in that developing. It has taken -- well, it has been a very
difficult path for the Botanical Gardens to get pennitting and approval
to do all the things they want to do. And we're still struggling with
some of that. So they are making a lot of progress.
But the thing that I think we have to keep in mind is that these
are TDC funds, and TDC funds are always going to be utilized for the
purpose of activities that attract tourists, whether they're
self-supporting or not. I mean, that's what TDC funds are for.
And the Botanical Gardens certainly will become a major
attraction when it is fully developed. But I would expect the TDC
funds would always be used in some way to support activities that
attract tourists.
And I think what you and Commissioner Halas are concerned
about, rightfully so, is the potential requirement to use general revenue
funds to make up for --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sufficiency.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- support of the museums, and I
share that concern with you. I think that the museums also attract
tourists, and I think they should also get tourist funds.
And I don't know if there is a way to connect those during this
particular discussion. And county manager (sic), you'll have to guide
us here to keep us out of trouble. Are you listening?
MS. FILSON: You said county manager.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry.
MR. WEIGEL: No, you said county manager.
MR. MUDD: You said county manager, and since you opened
the door -- and then I will turn it over to David. I, will say, too, that
Commissioner Henning's concern was the fact that you're about ready
to go through a workshop tomorrow to talk about a zoo, okay? And
224
June 8, 2004
he's basically talking about, and the request that you had was to
purchase the zoo, or to whatever.
And he was concerned that the board would make some
commitment tomorrow that would talk about expenditures of dollars
whereby, in the particular ordinance, this TDC money would be
available in order to do that. And before the workshop is over, to
commit those dollars for '05 kind of ties your hands and 'basically tells
you that you don't have funds now, that you have discretion in case
you -- the board decides it wants to do something tomorrow at a
workshop.
Now that's Commissioner Henning, and those were the concerns
that he relayed to me.
Now, as far as the ordinance is concerned, I'll leave that up to
David. But I think the county and the noncounty segments of that
particular C-2 development are separate and distinct and they're done
by separate percentages in that ordinance, and I don't think you can
mix and match.
David?
MR. WEIGEL: You leave the heavy lifting to me.
The board's had two votes right now, a vote to approve and
continue, and came up with tie votes for both. The reconsideration
ordinance limits you to someone who's voted with the majority.
I've been working through the reconsideration ordinance and
trying to think of variations on a theme for you to do an additional
vote today. So far I haven't come up with one. And what I see is, is
that you may have placed yourselves in a situation where this matter
can come back, but it will probably have to be coupled with something
else to not fall under the limitation of the reconsideration ordinance.
You've had a vote -- Commissioner Coletta mentioned this. The
discussion got started there -- that if you vote now; then it's tough to
bring something back. And I think right now you're limited to
bringing this back, or staff bringing it back, coupled with something
225
June 8, 2004
else so that it's not an exact repeat of what you just voted to a
deadlock tie a couple times.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What I was going to say, also, the
fact that if we could continue this until we get the fifth commissioner
aboard.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it sounds like it's going to happen without
any further motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: By default.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think somehow you guys are thinking
that we're not in favor of supporting museums. I sure am.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, and I believe you, I really
do. The problem is is that there is nothing that has to be done tonight
that can't be done two weeks from now, and life would go on. We'll
have a little more information to be able to make our decision.
If there's enough for everybody when we get through, I got -- I
haven't got a problem. I supported the Botanical Gardens last year. I
didn't vote against it, and the year before that too. But we also came
up with what we needed for the most part. We still fell short, for the
museum. This year we're getting one part of the element ahead of the
other. So, you know, I don't think we've got much of a choice now.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't know what we can -- no, no. I
don't think the TDC meets again until something like the 29th of June.
I'm going to be -- yeah, I think it's the 29th of June, which is after our
June meeting. And then that would be mean that it would go till -- the
TDC would have to then discuss it at their meeting.
MS. FILSON: The 29th of June, Madam Chairman, you have
budget meeting all day, the 29th and the 30th of June.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, maybe it's the 28th. I'm sorry.
Monday the 28th, I think, is the TDC.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What would be wrong if we
went till our July meeting? I mean, there can't be any harm to it.
226
-.-----..
June 8, 2004
Obviously they're not going to spend all this money in the next couple
of months.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It wouldn't even be appropriated until the
fall. I understand what you're saying.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, wait a minute. Yeah, that's
true, yeah. So just as a thought.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But I understood the county
attorney to tell us that we didn't have the alternative of bringing it
back now. There's no way to bring it back.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think it could come back coupled with
something else.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, what I'm thinking about is,
suppose we bring all of the TDC fund expenditures back to be
considered at the same time, which will be these, plus the museum,
and any others, and that way you've got the entire TDC recomm --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's fantastic.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Excellent.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And you do it all at one
time.
MR. WEIGEL: Clearly your prerogative, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right. Why don't we --
why don't we instruct the staff to do that then.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that's fantastic.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great. Do you need a motion to that
effect, David?
MR. WEIGEL: I don't think so.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good.
MR. WEIGEL: I think the staff understands direction.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Very good. Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Wouldn't want a deadlock on that one, that's for
sure.
227
June 8, 2004
Item #8C
RESOLUTION 2004-200A TRANSMITTING CPSP-2003-11
(WILDLIFE ELEMENT) AS A SEPARATE PORTION OF THE
2003 CYCLE 1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT
IQj)CA - A l)Q£IEJ)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now we move back to 8(C). I think
we've already lost Nancy Payton. Back to 8(C).
MS. CHUMBLER: Madam Chairman, again, Marti Chumbler,
outside land use counsel for the county.
I think this starts on page 27, I believe, in your packet. And
before we start, let me just point out a correction that needs to be
made. And actually, the best way to explain it is to refer you to the
footnote.
It -- actually the accurate statement would be that words with a
single-line underline are added; words with a single strike-through are
deleted as recommended by staff and the CCPC.
The double underlining and the double strike-through was what
was recommended by the EAC but was not recommended by the
CCPC and is not recommended by the staff.
So the double strike-through and the double underlining is not
what the CCPC recommended, and it also is not what the staff
recommends.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. The double strike-through is one
that nobody has recommended; is that correct?
MS. CHUMBLER: The EAC had recommended, but the
recommendation was not adopted by the CCPC nor is it recommended
by the staff.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. CHUMBLER: So, for example, in 7.1.2, subparagraph 3,
there should be no change to the first sentence and the second
228
June 8, 2004
sentence should be stricken.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do we have any speakers on this
subj ect?
MS. FILSON: It has grown from four to five.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Would you like to hear them now?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Please.
MS. FILSON: Brad Cornell. He will be followed by Nicole
Ryan.
MR. CORNELL: Brad Cornell with Collier County Audubon
Society. I'm supportive of the direction which was originally given by
the Board of County Commissioners, and I believe the process is
going forward with the stakeholders' group, and I'd like to see this
continue with this change.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So as it's written with the doubling
strike-throughs, eliminating those things is what you're supporting?
MR. CORNELL: Right. The EAC language that has the double
underline, double strike-through, I do not support. I understand why
it's there, but I don't support it. I think we should go with what you-all
had originally recommended and what the staff and CCPC have
recommended, and that's what we support as well. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Nicole--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So just for clarification. You're
saying the double underline, such as in 7.1.2, that is capable of
supporting wildlife and can be anticipated to be occupied by listed
species, you want that removed; is that correct?
MR. CORNELL: My version doesn't have double underline or
double strike-through, so I'm not exactly sure. Whatever was
originally recommended by the Planning Commission and staff, that's
what we support. We don't want to make any last-minute changes,
and we feel that that's just muddying the water and causing problems.
I understand why some of these changes were made or suggested
229
. '-'"------.
June 8, 2004
by the EAC. I just don't think we should be changing now. I want to
go with what we all had before the EAC's hearing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I wish we could all be on the same
page.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Marti, do you know what he's really
saying trying to say?
MS. CHUMBLER: Yes. Commissioner Halas, maybe we can
clarify it by -- I think, Brad, can you confirm that the version you
support in subparagraph 3, there would be no change to the first
sentence. It would read exactly as it reads --
MR. CORNELL: Correct.
MS. CHUMBLER: -- today in the camp. plan --
MR. CORNELL: That's correct.
MS. CHUMBLER: -- and the entirety of the second sentence
would be deleted?
MR. CORNELL: Correct. And what Commissioner Halas was
asking me about was the policy above that, which I don't really -- I
don't have any information on that, because mine doesn't read the
same as yours.
MS. CHUMBLER: The policy above that, there was no double
strike-throughs or underlines. It's only subparagraph 3 -- 7.1,
subparagraph 3 where there's any double underlining.
MR. CORNELL: Oh, is that right? Okay. Well, then we do not
support any of that double strike-through, double underline.
MS. CHUMBLER: And that --
MR. CORNELL: Just delete the second sentence. That was all
you had suggested. That's all you had directed. That's all we support.
MS. CHUMBLER: And the same would be true of the future
land use element, policy 5.5, subparagraph 3, correct?
MR. CORNELL: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have any double
230
____'~ø-·....-···-~--
June 8, 2004
strike-throughs. I've got one double underline, one single underline,
but the same statement.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: This is double strike-through.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So could somebody put something
on the overhead so we know what it is we're talking about?
MS. CHUMBLER: The one I'm looking at -- if you are at -- are
you looking at page 27 of your agenda packet?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm looking at page 2 of 10 in the
executive summary.
MS. CHUMBLER: Okay. It may be correct in the executive
summary then.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. CHUMBLER The executive summary, which was printed,
it's got, on policy 7.1.2, subparagraph 3 -- are we at the same place?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think so. Ifwe could see it on the
-- okay. All right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There we go.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, what -- let's start with policy
7.1.2, subparagraph 2.
MS. CHUMBLER: Subparagraph 2.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How should that read in the most
current proposal?
MS. CHUMBLER: We are proposing that the version that you
adopt read as follows: Wildlife habitat management plan for listed
species shall be submitted for county approval, period. A plan shall
be required for all projects where the wildlife survey indicated listed
species are utilizing the site, comma, or the site, then strike, contains
potential habitat for listed species, end of the stricken language, and
then add, is capable of supporting wildlife and can be anticipated to be
inhabited by listed species, period. And then the next sentence
remains the same.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And we're saying to strike the
231
June 8, 2004
underlined version?
MS. CHUMBLER: Excuse me?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No.
MS. CHUMBLER: No, that paragraph, there was--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. CHUMBLER: -- is just as it's been supported by everyone
all the way through.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So what you're saying is, for the site is
capable of supporting?
MS. CHUMBLER: Right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right. That's how it's supposed to read.
MS. CHUMBLER: For the site is capable of supporting wildlife,
for subparagraph 2.
Now, turn your attention to subparagraph 3. And I can't -- my
eyes are not good enough to read what's on the overhead screen.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But you've got a copy of the blue
copy?
MS. CHUMBLER: I have a copy of the blue copy. And in
paragraph 3, you will see on the fourth line the words, containing
listed species is double stricken.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. CHUMBLER: It should not be. That language should be
left in.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Qkay.
MS. CHUMBLER: The language that's shown double
underlined that would finish that sentence should not be added, shall
be taken out.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
MS. CHUMBLER: So in other words, that first sentence should
be left exactly as it appears in today's comprehensive plan.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
232
June 8, 2004
MS. CHUMBLER: The last sentence --
MR. MUDD: Let's make sure we've got it right. It says, the
county shall, consistent with applicable GMP policies, consider and
utilize recommendations and letters of technical assistance from the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and
recommendations from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in issuing
development orders on property containing listed species, period.
N ow we're moving to the next sentence.
MS. CHUMBLER: And that's it. And that's the way the entirety
of that subparagraph --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that's how it originally was
suggested?
MS. CHUMBLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Not the EAC, but this is what the CCPC
recommended and this is what staff recommended?
MS. CHUMBLER: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. CHUMBLER: Yes.
MR. MUDD: What about the last sentence; is that struck?
MS. CHUMBLER: The last sentence is stricken, and--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But there's nothing else other than --
MS. CHUMBLER: And everyone has agreed that the last
sentence should be stricken.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So what you just read is what
we're voting on?
MS. CHUMBLER: Yes. And policy 5.5, you'll see at the
bottom of that page, in the future land use element, subparagraph 3,
should read exactly the same way, that exact same change should be
made there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And Brad was just shaking his
head, that's what he was recommending.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, just so you under -- that's --
233
"'~-"--'''--''-''''''''-
June 8, 2004
the language that's being proposed has been agreed to at our last
meeting that we had, it's the same language that was agreed to by the
stakeholders' group. So the EAC made the proposed changes to make
it different, but nobody agreed with it. So that's what we just went
over.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So we -- then from what we see on
this blue one, we strike, that is capable of supporting.
MS. CHUMBLER: We don't have to strike it. It's not there
currently.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, but in our heads.
MS. CHUMBLER: Right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we add back in our heads, containing
listed species.
MS. CHUMBLER: Yes, correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, good.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All right, fine. So we all are on the same
page. Got it.
Okay. Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Nicole Ryan. She will be
followed by Doug Fee.
MS. RYAN: Good evening, Commissioners. Again, for the
record, Nicole Ryan, here on behalf of the Conservancy, and we
support staffs recommended language, which County Manager Mudd
just read to you and which Brad Cornell had also shaken his head to. I
hate to say anything to confuse the matter even more.
But language as proposed by staff mirrors exactly the direction
that you gave in March to proceed forward with, and we hope that you
approve that language, the CCPC and staff recommendation, not the
EAC recommendation for transmittal. Thank you. .
MS. FILSON: Doug Fee. Doug will be followed by Nancy
Payton. Did Nancy leave?
234
June 8, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MS. FILSON: Then the next speaker will be Rich Y ovanovich.
MR. FEE: Good evening again, Commissioners. For the record,
my name is Doug Fee, and I also would like to support staffs
recommendation, the words that Marti just read to you, and we have
spoken many times on the record.
One other thing I'd like to say -- and you know, yóu can always
look at the language and pick out something that seems to be more
important or more specific. And what I would say is, the comma
applicable policies, I think is really important because what it does is
it leads you to other sentences or other policies above and it doesn't
necessarily tell you that it's one way.
You take all the facts, including the technical letters that you will
get from the agencies, and then the county has the ability through
those technical letters to decide on that proj ect or in general.
And so I just wanted to say, it's not necessarily a limiting policy
so much as it's leading you to the whole -- the whole list of policies.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Rich Y ovanovich, and your final speaker will be
Donna Reed Caron.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good evening. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich. I don't think that any specific language was actually
agreed to by the stakeholders. I've attended all the meetings, and
there's been discussions about what type of language should be agreed
to.
I still think we have an issue with the language as proposed, and
the issue is as follows: What happens in the event you were actually
issued a permit by the district or by the Corps of Engineers?
Will staff honor or not honor the permit? The language is not
clear, and I believe the original intent was to honor permits issued by
either the district or the Corps of Engineers.
So what I am suggesting is that there be a change to the language
235
June 8, 2004
that's in front of you, and I'll read it to you because I have a different
version than everybody else. But I would read paragraph 3 to be as
follows: The county shall be bound by permits issued by applicable
state and federal agencies, and where permits are not issued, consider
and utilize recommendations and letters of technical assistance from,
and then keep going on with the remainder of the sentence.
And then the second sentence would be revised to read: It is
recognized that these agency permits or recommendations may change
the requirements contained within these wildlife protection policies,
and any such change shall be deemed consistent with the Growth
Management Plan.
I believe that was the original intent, is that permit -- that the
state and federal government will issue permits, and that's what we'll
honor during this time period. That doesn't mean that we can't go
forward as we're doing in the stakeholder group to discuss specific
policies for specific species.
But in the interim, it addresses the question of, if you get a permit
that says you can do something, will the county government honor
that permit.
Right now if you go with the language that's being
recommended, I don't know if you're going to honor the permit. Staff
is going to have -- can decide on this basis, on this permit no, I'm not
going to honor it because it's inconsistent with the plan, and on the
very same thing, impacting wetlands, they may say it would be okay
because it's -- this particular part is consistent with the comprehensive
plan.
I think we need to get to the specifics and deal with the permits
right now, honor them and recognize them, and then go on and deal
with specific policies that we're discussing in the stakeholder group,
and that's when you'll come back with, what's it going to cost, what's
the impact going to be to county projects and everybody else's projects
if we come up with specific species regulations.
236
June 8, 2004
But in the interim, I suggest that we go with recognizing state
permits. That would be the highest order of priority, then you would
go to your letter of technical assistance and recommendations, and you
would follow them when you don't have a permit addressing that
topic.
So that's how I think we can handle the glitch that exists. And if
you have any specific questions, I'll be happy to answer the questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta, then
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hear what you're saying,
Richard, and it makes a lot of sense. Why would we want to apply for
a permit to do whatever, whether it's building a building or building a
road, get the permit and then find out that at that point in time staff,
dealing with their own interpretations or whatever, deems that permit
not adequate.
But I do like the idea of being able to, if we don't -- if a permit
isn't issued, that we can go forward and address it at that time.
I think you covered it pretty well with it. I see the original
language you just mentioned down here below that's been struck out.
But I'm not too sure what the intent is by the direction that we're
ending up with now, which is the recommendations coming from staff.
MS. CHUMBLER: Well, Commissioner Coletta, if I may
remind you, this is not from staff. This was your direction that you
gave to us back earlier in this year where we very specifically came to
you and talked about various options we had for amending this
language, and the language that we're proposing to you today is
exactly what you directed us to do at that point.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And that was by a 3-2 vote in
which we're going through the process now to allow public input, and
I'm suggesting that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I make a suggestion? It's
going to take a vote in the end of four -- four commissioners to make
237
June 8, 2004
this fly. If we stuck with something like this, I know you'll have --
well, you'll have this commissioner aboard on this particular thing,
and I'll be able to stay with it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The language I'm proposing?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The language you're proposing.
MS. CHUMBLER: Commissioner, if I may add, I didn't write
down exactly what--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'll give it to you.
MS. CHUMBLER: -- Mr. Y ovanovich gave me, but -- or stated,
but part of my concern -- I have some concerns about permitting
language. But if you add back in that second sentence, you have now
reopened the whole controversy about the extent to which letters of
advisement from agencies will and can be used by staff.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand.
MS. CHUMBLER: And that was exactly the decision that was
made. And it's obviously your option to do that. And that's one of the
reasons why we carved this resolu -- frankly why we carved this
resolution out separately.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And why--
MS. CHUMBLER: We felt if there was one that was going to be
controversial, it would be this one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm just trying to save
everybody a lot of time, because when we get down to the very end,
I'd hate to see everybody's work and efforts be for naught because it
failed by a vote of 3-2. This is purely a suggestion, and this
commission's going to take the direction it wishes to go.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What I'm concerned about is that
we have a staff member that basically got up in front and testified that
this was a concerted effort by all the stakeholders that were involved.
So I think this is the language that everybody was comfortable
with, and so that's why I feel that if, at this point in time in the
238
. .<---'.--
June 8, 2004
discussion in the preliminary stages, seemed to lead us to believe that
is the right direction to go.
MR. YO V ANOVICH: Well, Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Am I right in what I stated?
MS. CHUMBLER: Not entirely, Your Honor (sic). I think this
was a -- this was a very much debated issue when it came before the
commission before when --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. I'm talking about the draft
where you said they -- the people involved in this -- Joe, if you could
just refresh my memory. I know it's getting late in the afternoon, but
MR. SCHMITT: Again, for the record --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Evening.
MR. SCHMITT: -- Joe Schmitt --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Evening.
MR. SCHMITT: -- Administrator of Community Development,
Environmental Services.
I wouldn't say there was 100 percent agreement, but there was
overall consensus that the language that Marti just went through and
the language that you directed us from a consensus perspective was
the language that was pretty much agreed to by everyone. Now,
certainly there would have been -- there may have been some --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: -- disagreement from some individuals, but
there was general consensus that this was the most neutral language to
allow us to move forward with this amendment as we proceed with the
stakeholders' group to come back to you with a more definitive
analysis of the entire listed species program.
And we're working with the stakeholders' group to do that, and
we'll be coming back to you with a very definitive analysis of the pros
and cons of the proposals made, the cost associated with it, and if, in
fact, we're going to implement some kind of a listed species program
239
June 8, 2004
above and beyond what's required by the state or Feds.
This is the interim language to get us out of this deconflicting
glitch that we had in the language. And that's -- that -- this language,
as Marti just said, is the language that you directed us to come back
with that was a 3-2 voted, and that's where we are with this.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MS. CHUMBLER: My understanding, Commissioner, is that
there's already a workshop scheduled before the board in December to
report back on the stakeholders' group finding.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: In December.
MS. CHUMBLER: Yes, ma'am.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Donna Reed Caron.
MS. CARON: For the record, Donna Reed Caron.
Commissioners, I have to agree with Marti and also with Joe Schmitt.
It was the consensus of the group and it was your direction that gave
us the language that is coming back to you now.
And I think at this point in time I'm not sure it's appropriate to
bring forward new language. I think that should go back through the
EAC and the CCPC, and then come forward to you through a full
process, if somebody wants to bring new language.
And as everybody's mentioned, the stakeholders' group is
working very diligently to try to work through all the issues so that we
don't have to have a lot of debate when it finally does come forward to
you.
So I think we should go with staff and leave it as it is for now.
Thank you. .
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I was going to say,
stakeholders' group, would it be possible that when we meet on this
again as we move this through the process and it comes back for
consideration, if we could have the minutes relating to this that takes
place at the stakeholders' meeting so we can view it? Since we're
240
June 8, 2004
depending upon the stakeholders' decisions to be able to give us
guidance, I would really like to see the minutes of their meeting so I
could be able to fall back on it.
MS. CARON: There are notes that I am sure Bill Lorenz will
provide to you and every one of the commissioners. We've always --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You mean minutes or notes?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner--
MS. CARON: Well, it's basically notes. We don't have--
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we don't do verbatim minutes --
MR. SCHMITT: In this meeting we did.
MR. MUDD: Did you?
MR. SCHMITT: We have verbatim notes on this.
MS. CARON: Oh, did you?
MR. SCHMITT: This past meeting we had verbatim notes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's a good start.
MS. CARON: That's good.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any discussion from
commissioner -- oh, I have to close the public hearing; do I not?
There you go.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion we approve this as
-- the changes that were discussed earlier --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Putting back in, containing listed species
and dropping that last --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Putting back in, containing it, right,
and dropping the, that is -- right, that -- that double-striked sentence.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And I second that motion.
Okay. Do we have any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
241
June 8, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a 3-1 on that particular
item.
We move on now to 10(B).
MR. MUDD: No, Commissioner, you need a trans -- you need a
major motion for transmittal for --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay.
MR. MUDD: -- 8(B) and 8(C) as one transmittal document.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: How about if we -- okay. You know
what, we're going to hit the nines and we're going to go through the
nines before we get to 10(B). Those are easy. Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What do we need?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We need a majo -- one motion to transmit
all of the --
MS. CHUMBLER: 2003-11.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, we had two --
MS. CHUMBLER: There was a B part, which is the larger
glitch, and then the first part of what I presented.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. CHUMBLER: Then we did some other things. And then
the second part, which is the wildlife only, are being transmitted as a
single transmittal --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could you talk into the mike,
please?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Did we -- did we trans -- vote to transmit
the first packet? I don't think so.
MR. LITSTER: We need a consolidated resolution to transmit
the consolidated amendments and also the resolution on the wildlife
7.12 policy to DCA for review. One motion, one vote.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why do we have to tie it all
together in one motion?
242
June 8, 2004
MR. LITSTER: Because these -- we are permitted two cycle
transmittals per year, and both of these resolutions taken together
constitute our first cycle in this calendar year, not two separate
transmittals.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, this will require a vote of
three commissioners, right?
MR. LITSTER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, fine. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I thought it was four.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no.
MR. WEIGEL: Not for transmittal.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: This is for transmittal. For adoption, you
need four. For transmittal, you need three.
Okay. So may I have -- I'll make a motion to transmit including
all of the changes and modifications and amendments that we've
added to them.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Fiala, a second by Commissioner Halas.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have 3-1 vote on that, with
Commissioner Coletta -- what is the -- naying.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just call me James.
243
June 8, 2004
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2004-201: APPOINTMENT OF MR. DAVID
BESWICK TO THE CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD-
ADOEIEJ)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, my. Now we're going to go on to
9(A).
9(A), this is to appoint one member to the Contractors' Licensing
Board, and we only have one applicant.
MS. FILSON: And this is a reappointment.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And he is a reappointment. He's only
served one term -- one year of his term?
MS. FILSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I motion to approve Mr. David Beswick.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a
second, Mr. David Beswick, for Contractors' Licensing Board.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's a 4-0 on that.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2004-202: CONFIRMATION OF PAUL W.
SULLIVAN TO THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY
COMMlI.IER - A D.OITED
244
".- ----------'~..._.
June 8, 2004
We go to item--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 9(B).
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- 9(B).
MS. FILSON: 9(B) is to confirm Marco Island's appointment to
the Coastal Advisory Committee, Mr. Paul W. Sullivan.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I make a motion to approve Marco
Island's recommendation for Mr. Paul Sullivan to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- the Coastal Advisory Committee, 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: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Item #9C
APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS TO SERVE ON THE
VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD AND SET THE DATE FOR THE
ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING - COMMISSIONERS FIALA,
COLETTA, AND HENNING TO SERVE AS REGULAR V AB
MEMBERS AND COMMISSIONERS COYLE AND HALAS TO
SERVE AS ALTERNATES; ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING SET
E.ORlliJ ,Y 2h, 2004..AT 9'00 A M
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We go on to 9(C).
MS. FILSON: This item is to appoint members to the Value
Adjustment Board. I need three commission members and two
commission alternates, and we're also setting the organizational
245
,<-~--",..~".,.,.-
June 8, 2004
meeting --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I nominate --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Henning.
MS. FILSON: We're also setting the organizational meeting for
July 26th. We're setting dates for the special masters as October 7th --
6th, 7th, and 8th, and depending on what the Value Adjustment Board
does on their July 26th organizational meeting, we've tentatively set
October 13th, 14th, and 15th; however, if they take the
recommendations of the special masters, we won't need the three days.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would just --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You said October -- August 6th, 7th, and
8th or October?
MS. FILSON: October 6th, 7th, and 8th are -- those are the dates
for special masters.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hold on. I just would like to say
that I -- I would like to be left out of this quandary because I'm on the
Canvassing Board, and I think a lot of my time is going to be taken on
that. So between -- I think we've got four other commissioners that
can handle that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would like to nominate
Commissioner Henning for all three positions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But Commissioners Coletta and
Fiala because -- primarily because they're the three running for
reelection, and they're definitely going to be here fighting for votes all
summer.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Man.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But I will volunteer as an alternate
for any of the meetings in September or October.
246
June 8, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. I'll be gone on July 26th. We're
going away four days, and wouldn't that be one of them. I'll be here
the rest of the time and I'd be happy to do it. It doesn't make any
difference. But on that particular day, I'll need an alternate.
MS. FILSON: That meeting will only last approximately an
hour, hour and a half. That's your organizational meeting to determine
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll be in Michigan that day. We're only
going four.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'll be in Montana.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll be in New York.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Will anybody be here on the 26th
of July?
MS. FILSON: Maybe we can change the meeting to 8:00 on the
27th.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Eight a.m.?
MS. FILSON: Before the BCC meeting. We'll have three
commissioners here then.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's a good solution.
MS. FILSON: Would that work?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's a good solution.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That will work.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'd have to look at my schedule. I'll tell
you, I thought that -- but I'm sure I'm back that date. Let's make it at
eight a.m.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's arrange a schedule that fits
her requirement so she can be here and we've got it solved. It will be
Commissioner Henning, Commissioner Coletta, and Commissioner
Fiala.
MS. FILSON: And -- I have to set a date so that you all are all
going to direct me to write a letter to the school board to get their two
247
"'------,.~._-
June 8, 2004
members.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you want it on the 27th?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Same day as the commission
meeting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Could we select a date tomorrow and then
you write the letter after we select a --
MS. FILSON: During the workshop?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got a suggestion.
Commissioner Fiala, if you'd like to run back and look -- quickly look
at your calendar.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We can do it right here.
MR. MUDD: Well, Commissioner, I can tell you right now that
the 27th is the BCC meeting, and no commissioner so far has told me
that he or she won't be here, and I also know that on the 28th, we
reserved that day on your calendars in case this meeting extends for
two days.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's right.
MS. FILSON: However, I don't think we're going to have a full
board on the 28th.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's right. That's when I'm going, on
the 28th. So I will be here on Monday before the meeting. Okay,
great.
MS. FILSON: So we're nominating Commissioner Henning,
Coletta, and Fiala as the Value Adjustment Board. Commissioner
Halas and Coyle as the alternates --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MS. FILSON: -- and you're approving the dates?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MS. FILSON: And you're directing me to do a letter to the
school board.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MS. FILSON: Thank you. And I guess we need a motion.
248
June 8, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, wait a minute, there's still
discussion. You know, I seem to be ignored on this. You know,
Donna and I have been on it every single --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's your turn now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- every single--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I was on it last year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's been three years. And even
when I was on the Canvassing Board for two years I was on this. No
problem. It's just that, you know, at some point in time I'd like to say I
wasn't on that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, we've got to get seven
commISSIoners.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. You're elected.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we're getting all this from the
guy who says he loves this stuff?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I love certain elements. Okay.
MS. FILSON: I can tell you that the Value Adjustment Board
organizational meeting won't go past --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know.
MS. FILSON: --like an hour and a half.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I --
MS. FILSON: And then if you take the recommendations of the
special master, the V AB board will be one to two hours on one day.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But I'm giving notice
that next year I want to be able to speak for -- that's right. He's the
chair. He's going to have control of the gavel.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I won't have a chance to speak.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He won't get to speak for the whole
year.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: He can't speak much as the chairman, so
we'll nominate him next year.
249
June 8, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You don't speak much now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I'm all set.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So I will make a motion that we --
that we select Commissioner Henning, Coletta, and Fiala as members
for the V AB, and Commissioner Halas and Commissioner Coyle as
alternates and direct Sue Filson to write a letter to the school board for
their two recommendations, and the --
MS. FILSON: And also--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- meeting dates will be accepted as
written.
MS. FILSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'll make a second on that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And I have a second --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Generous of you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- from Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Thank you.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2004-203 APPOINTMENT OF JOSEPH C.
OVERBECK TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY
BOARD- ADQ£IED
250
.~---~._..-
June 8, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We move on to parks and rec., and
I would like to say something --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I make a motion?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No. I'd like to say something here, if you
don't mind. The -- on this particular one, we -- we in District 1 have
not had a person on the Parks and Rec. Advisory Board, in, I believe --
I believe 10 years.
And so I would like to make a motion that we accept Joe
Overbeck as the first person from District 1 to be on this parks and
recs. board in years, and I would appreciate a second.
Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a second from
Commissioner Coletta.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a 4-0 on that, thank you. I really
appreciate that. I'm so excited to have somebody on the Parks and
Rec. Board finally. Thank you very much.
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2004-204 APPOINTMENT OF BYRON J. MEADE
TO THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY -
.A.llilITED
We have a motion for the Airport Authority Board.
251
June 8, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to accept Byron Meade.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion to approve
Byron Meade and 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.
(No response.)
Item #9G
HIGHLIGHT AND HONOR VOLUNTEERS THAT SERVE ON
THE 50+ ADVISORY BOARDS - CONTINUED TO NEXT
ME.EIING - A E.ER OVED
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we move on to lO(B).
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, if I could get 9(G), and that has to
do with highlight and honor volunteers that serve on the 50 plus
advisory board. Can I ask if you could continue that item to the next
meeting, because that's Commissioner Henning's item, and he's--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So move.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
252
June 8, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, sir.
Item #I2A
THAT THE BOARD REVIEW THE PROPOSED STRAW
BALLOT, WHICH BALLOT ASKS THE VOTERS OF COLLIER
COUNTY WHETHER THEY WISH THE BOARD OF 'COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS TO ESTABLISH A CHARTER COMMISSION
TO DRAFT A PROPOSED COUNTY CHARTER FOR COLLIER
COUNTY, WHICH PROPOSED CHARTER WOULD THEN BE
VOTED ON AT A SPECIAL ELECTION, AT AN ESTIMATED
COST OF $500,000; INSTRUCT STAFF AS TO ANY
MODIFICATION DESIRED; AND IF THE BOARD IS SO
INCLINED, CONSIDER AND APPROVE A RESOLUTION
ORDERING AND CALLING A REFERENDUM ELECTION TO
BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 2, 2004, RELATING TO THIS STRAW
BALLOT ISSUE, WHICH RESOLUTION DIRECTS THE
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS TO PLACE THE STRAW
BALLOT PROPOSITION FOR VOTE AT THE NOVEMBER 2004
GENERAL ELECTION, AND PROVIDES FOR APPROPRIATE
NOTICE - MOTION TAKEN LACKED OF MAJORITY
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I suggest that we go to
I2(A). Mr. Lou Vlasho has been waiting here for hours to speak on
that issue. Is it possible to do that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What is it, 12 what?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I2(A).
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What is I2(A)?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's the charter.
MR. WEIGEL: I2(A) is the county attorney" it's the resolution
about the straw ballot and the charter commission.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure, go ahead.
253
June 8, 2004
Remember all these favors I've given you.
MR. KLATZCOW: For the record, Jeff Klatzcow, county
attorney's office. The board at a prior meeting in December, 2003,
directed staff to bring back the ballot question for the board to
consider asking the voters of Collier County whether they wish to
appoint the charter commission with a dollar amount allocated to that
. . ,
commISSIon.
With the fine efforts of the office of the Supervisor of Elections,
we have drafted proposed language for the ballot, which is up on the
screen for your review.
The ballot amendment would state that, should the Board of
County Commissioners establish a charter commission to draft a
proposed county charter, Collier County, the proposed charter would
then be voted on at special election. The estimated cost of the charter
commission's special election is $500,000. Yes, to appoint the charter
commission; no, not to appoint the charter commission.
I must make one note that there is still the possibility that the
citizen groups of Collier County could, by the petition process
between now and the time this gets on the November ballot, bring
forth enough signed petitions which would make this entire process
moot.
There are basically two ways to bring a charter commission into
being; one by ordinance, 5-4, the other by a petition process of 15
percent for each of the voters of this county.
The board has asked to get a straw ballot to gauge the pulse of
the county, whether we wish to go through the time and expense of a
charter commission, but there is that possibility that the petition
process will be moving on even as this process moves on.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I -- I take a few minutes?
I'm still opposed to doing this. We talked about doing it at one of the
primary elections, and then we talked about doing it at the general
election, and now this proposal has it being done in a special election,
254
June 8, 2004
which of course is --
MR. KLATSCOW: That's not quite sure (sic). What we're doing
IS --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, the proposed charter would
be voted on in a special election, I understand.
MR. KLATSCOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. You're proposing that this
appear on what ballot? When?
MR. KLATSCOW: The November ballot. So that there will be
no cost to the county of any appreciable nature.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, there are about
151,000 registered voters in Collier County. About 60 percent of
them vote in a primary election. So that means that if we get 31
percent of the people who were in favor of this, we would be faced
with a decision of changing the form of our government, or at least
beginning the charter commission process to change the form of our
government, based upon probably 30 percent of the people who are
registered to vote.
That's a tough position to be in. And I'm -- I really wonder
whether we want to do this. The people who wanted this refused our
offer to put it on a ballot last year. They said no, we're going to
bypass you. We're going to go directly to the people and get enough
signatures to put this on the ballot. So I don't understand why we don't
let them do that. Because that's what they said they were they were
going to do, and that's what they've been working on for some time.
I feel very uncomfortable about doing this for another reason.
How do you tell people what this means? What are the implications
of this decision? How is it going to change your government? And
how are we going to make sure the people understand?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We can be just like Dade County, that's
how. They're a charter government.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, and it does a wonderful job
255
_..<........._.."'.,_.~.~w~
June 8, 2004
for them, doesn't it?
So what I am concerned about is that we go down this path for no
reason whatsoever. If there are people who want the charter
government, they have a way to get it on the ballot. And so I really
don't understand why we need to do this.
The other thing we need to remember is that there are a lot of
people here who are not present between now and November. They
cannot benefit from any public debates concerning this issue. They
won't know the issues, they won't understand the implications of a
charter commission. They won't understand what potential changes to
their government are being anticipated. And we have no way of
helping them understand that. So they're going to be voting on
something that's just like the high speed rail. You don't know how it's
going to get built, you don't know where the money's going to come
from, you don't know what the final effect is going to be, but please
tell us yes or no whether or not you want us to do it. And that gives
me a very, very uncomfortable feeling.
The people who want charter government have an obligation to
get out there and tell people what it's all about. Get the signatures.
And if they get the signatures, then they can put it on the ballot and it
can be voted on. But I really don't want to be a party to doing
something that I know people will not be given the opportunity to
understand before they're asked to vote on it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, a lot of what you said is
absolutely true. But there's still a basis to what we're doing. Two
things come to mind: One, we made a promise that we were going to
do this. We said that we would. And to do anything less now would
be a loss of faith. I do think that the voters will make a logical
decision. Two other times they've had a chance at this and refused it.
I don't know what the consensus of opinion out there. I would assume
that, you know, they don't think it's something that's necessary. But1
256
June 8, 2004
still, it's something that we did make, comments about, we directed
staff to go forward with it and we said that we would get it on the
ballot. So I am going to go forward with putting it on the ballot.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have one speaker? Did you want to
wait until after the speaker, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure.
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. Lou Vlasho.
MR. VLASHO: Lou Vlasho, president of the Naples Better
Government Committee. Thank you for moving this item up on the
agenda so I can get to the 7: 00 debate.
I don't want to reiterate everything that's been said, but the voters
in this county have on three separate occasions had the opportunity to
vote on a charter form of government and they have voted against it.
You've heard from your legal counsel and Commissioner Coyle talk
about the procedures on how these things get approved. They came to
you, the proponents. You in your wisdom decided not to move
forward. You did make that promise, but I think your job is to
reconsider things also. You can't always stick with your word, and I
don't think anyone in this case would hold that -- hold you liable,
because it's not a good idea to do this. They are out gathering votes.
There hasn't been a groundswell. You don't hear much about this. An
occasional letter, occasional article, they'll write one and we'll write
one in return. I've become sort of a quasi expert on this whole issue.
It's not the most exciting thing. And I'm concerned that you're wasting
space on the ballot, a very important ballot that will have a lot of
issues on it. I don't expect a lot of dialogue, but I would -- if you put it
on the ballot, I think you will force the Naples Better Government
Committee to mount a program educational, because I'm concerned
when things are put on a ballot, people tend to vote yes because they
say why would it be on the ballot if it's not a good thing? They really
won't know the difference. The bullet train, the pregnant pigs, et
cetera.
257
June 8, 2004
I think the proponents are out getting the votes, they're getting
their signatures. They'll come back to you. I think what the attorney
said is even if you put this on the ballot between now and November,
if they happen to come up with the votes, the petitions, it will be moot.
And if this is defeated and they still come up with the signatures, you
or the legislative group from this area would have to put it on, the
ballot anyway, or would have to appoint the commission. And that's
just a first step, as you know, because all they want to do is appoint a
commission to study the issue. And then there'll be another vote.
You're talking about a lot of money and time. And unless you
are getting calls and receiving letters, I advise you and I'd encourage
you to vote against putting this on the ballot. Let them get the
signatures. And if they do, then the system will work. Thank you
very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand where Lou Vlasho is
coming from and I understand where Commissioner Coyle is coming
from, and I have the same feelings. But, you know, when I give a man
my word that we're going to do something and I voted in regards to it,
I think it leaves the people to make that decision, and hopefully they'll
make the right decision. And I think it's for us to make sure that we
get the word out there that we have a form of government -- and of
course they criticized me in the paper that, you know, why when I
used the statement broke, and how about broken. But I feel that we
made a commitment. Yes, they said they were going to -- if I
remember what they brought forth was that they were going to get the
signatures prior to the election and that we said well, we'll put it on the
ballot. And so if we made that commitment to them, I feel that we
need to go forward with it. And I hope we don't end up in a stalemate.
I don't know where it will end from there.
But I just feel that when I give somebody a word that we're going
to put it on the ballot for them and that we said that we'll come up with
258
~.- -- ._---'~
June 8, 2004
the proper wording whether we're in favor or against, I feel that this
commission and I feel that government in this county is working for
the betterment of the people of Collier County. And I would hope that
the people here would see through a group of people that are wishing
to change our form of government, whether it's for the good or for the
worst. So I'll stand on that ground.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'd just like to make two
observations? One is that it is true that the commission said that we
would put it on the ballot. But then immediately thereafter, the people
who petitioned it rejected our offer and said we'll go around you and
you won't have anything at all to say about it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're absolutely right,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so, you know, it takes two
people to make a deal. And I think that they certainly were not a party
to that deal and I don't think they have a right to expect us to hold up
our end if they haven't held up theirs.
The other thing is that this is too important to be left up to hopes
that people will make the right decision. I would suggest to you that
when the bullet train was being considered, there were people who
were saying well, the people will see through this and they'll know it's
not a good idea. But they didn't, they approved it.
When the class size amendment was placed on the ballot, it was a
good idea, but nobody thought about how much it might cost and how
you're going to implement it. And so -- but yet people voted for it.
And there were a lot of people who I'm sure were saying well, the
voters are informed and they'll take a good look at it and make the
right decision. They didn't make the right decision, and now their
solution we have is probably worse than what we had before. But yet
we were mandated to do it.
So I'm asking that you consider what's best for our government.
259
_._'.H._
June 8, 2004
And if I can't convince you not to put it on the ballot, I would at least
like to ask you to consider not to put it on this ballot, because it will
get lost in the shuffle. There are so many charter amendments on this
ballot coming up, there is no way any voter can become well informed
on all of those charter amendments. And so what's going to happen is
people will vote exactly the way I vote for the retention of judges.
No, no, no, no, no. Okay? They're not going to get to know these
things.
And I just think that we're making a big mistake by trying to ram
it through during a period of time when a lot of our visitors -- a lot of
our voters are not here, we cannot contact them, we can't educate them
about the implications. If you insist on putting it on a ballot, let's pick
a time when the voters can really get involved, when there can be a
debate, when we can have meetings and get the two sides involved in
debates so that our voters can make a reasonable choice. Please don't
depend upon what voters said 10 or 15 years ago. Please look at this
as the risk that it really is.
And I would ask two things: If you feel like you've got to put it
on the ballot, let's talk about putting it on a later ballot. Even if there's
some additional expense associated with that. I think we owe it to the
voters to make sure they have an opportunity to understand this issue
thoroughly before we ask them to vote on it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, myself and then Commissioner
Halas, then Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta, then Commission
Halas.
As we're talking about this charter government, one of the things
you said was an informed voter. Don't forget, the only information --
the only way we get information out is through the newspaper --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, forget about informing voters
then.
260
June 8, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And if the newspaper -- depending on
how the newspaper feels about this particular item, and of course the
people who are pushing this item are strong letter writers, and many
people who read these think that that's how everyone should feel. And
that concerns me a lot. I think that many times people don't know
how to give the other side of the story, or are fearful of doing so.
Secondly, I think -- I've read the paper over and over again as far
as this charter government, and it -- the letter writers, especially, and
they talk about 80 percent of our residents in Florida who are charter
government. And they neglect to mention that any city who wants to
form a city must have a charter, whether the people like it or not.
That's if they want a city, they have to have a charter. It isn't that
everybody is clamoring to get a charter. To have a city, they must
have a charter. And they forget to mention that we have counties --
you know, everybody says don't east coast the west coast, and yet
where are the charter governments located? Broward County, Dade
County. We're talking Pinellas County, Hillsborough County . We're
talking about charter government in exactly the same places that
people don't want to look like. But that's never been mentioned before
in the newspaper. And I'm afraid that when they're getting the
information out, we won't get the whole picture. Not so much the
newspaper, I'm afraid that the letter writers will neglect to mention
those things, while the other people might be led around by the nose
and I have a concern there.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Of course we all
have concerns. A couple of points I think we need to mention. I
didn't promise the people that were in front of me, you know, with the
original idea of charter government that I would move this forward
and do this, I promised everyone out there. My promise wasn't tied to
conditions that these people would not try to put their own item out
there with a petition and get it moved forward. Mine was
261
June 8, 2004
unconditional. That's what I did at the time.
And I want to remind everyone that we're so concerned about the
voters and how they're going to be informed and what their choices
are going to be. These are the voters that put us in office, and they
made the right choice then.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I wasn't -- I'm going to defend myself just
a moment. I'm just telling you about information and sò forth. I feel
we also have an obligation to the people that we promised. So, you
know, I'm not saying that I'm voting against this, what I'm saying is --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand. And that is a
concern.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- I just hope the information that then is
gotten out to the people is more than just a one-sided slant. And not
saying that the newspaper would do that, I'm saying that the letter
writers who have this deep emotion about it are only going to write
one thing. And if you notice, they attack anybody who doesn't agree
with them. So that's a concern.
I'm sorry that I interrupted. Continue.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's quite all right. And you
very elegantly presented the rest of your case there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is it my turn?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I think I'm going to -- no,
it's your turn, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are there any public speakers on
this?
MS. FILSON: We only had one speaker, and he already spoke.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: One speaker?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Lou Vlasho, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. We didn't have any
speakers for it then, right?
MS. FILSON: That's the only speaker I had here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And here we're talking about where
262
__...____-n.
June 8, 2004
we should have a group of people. In fact, if this was a very popular
item amongst the constituents, you would think that this room would
be filled with people clamoring to make sure that this was on the
ballot. So I guess that's another way of looking at how much interest
is there really out there.
I'm concerned that the piece -- in fact, the same people that were
here shouting at us on this same subj ect aren't with us right now.
That's kind of a concern. Maybe they've lost interest in this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, I'd like to make a
motion, if it gets a second, fine, we can continue discussion, but at
least see where this might take us.
I make a motion for approval of this particular ballot item to be
put on the November ballot.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: For discussion, I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That doesn't mean that I'll vote for it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We already discussed it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, he wanted a discussion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I mean, if you want to
discuss it, or you just put it up to a vote. At least we'll know where
we're going with it. I don't see any nods.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Must have failed for lack of a
second. I make a motion that we --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, I seconded it. I seconded it for the
sake of discussion. I'm sorry. And--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I spoke my piece.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, so all in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
263
-.----....
June 8, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, so we have a 2-2 again.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, see that's why I said -- are we
-- this was a vote for -- just to discuss this item, is that --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, to put it on the November ballot. So
that has died because of a tie. Okay. So maybe we continue it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can't do it. '
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the only place you can go
with it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you like to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. It dies.
MR. MUDD: David?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, you voted to a deadlock to place it on the
November ballot. Under the reconsideration ordinance, that's not
available to you to reconsider, so that option would appear to be gone
at this point in time. You could bring it back another day with another
direction in mind, if you so chose.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't think I can make another
MR. WEIGEL: Someone who's voted with the majority can
bring it back for reconsideration, and we don't have a majority here.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know what? We've been here four
years and we've never had tie votes and we -- all of a sudden we're
getting tie votes left and right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's because we only have four
commissioners. Normally we have five.
Item #10B
RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE THE DEVELOPMENT
OF COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT DOCUMENTS FOR A
264
June 8, 2004
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to Item lOB, which
is a recommendation to authorize the development of competitive
procurement documents for a solid waste collections contract. And
Mr. John Y onkosky will present.
MR. YONKOSKY: Good evening, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is John Y onkosky.
Agenda Item lOB is to obtain board direction for the solid waste
collections contract. The executive summary provided a
chronological summary of the history of the collections contract. It
provided previous board direction and staff recommendations. And
the first slide that I want to show you deals with the staff
recommendations.
This is the recommendations that were in your executive
summary. Most of the slides are in your executive summary and -- so
you've had the opportunity to view them. I can go over all of the
slides in my presentation. But I could also stop with the
recommendations, identify the recommendations for the
commissioners, and we could answer questions at that time, if that's
what the Commissioners would like.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we've all had a chance to
read the executive summary. Are there any questions, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just a comment. I know you
attended a number of public meetings out there and I think you've
heard the public sentiment, what they're looking for. Would you tell
us what you think the options are that the public out there was most
receptive to?
MR. YONKOSKY: Well, we've heard several different
recommendations. I've been in your district several times, in
Commissioner Halas's district, and a couple of other meetings. The --
there was some discussion about going ahead and renegotiating the
265
June 8, 2004
contract with some of the constituents that responded to us.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To me, that seems like the best
alternative. I've still got the mic. for a moment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure, go ahead and finish.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If -- to reconsider, you know, to
be able to negotiate still leaves us the option open to be able to bring it
back if we don't think the price is right and put it out to bid. I feel that
my responsibility is to find the least cost way of providing this service
in the future.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that I would like to give
direction either to Jim DeLany or to Jim Mudd and see if they can
work with the best interest of all the citizens of Collier County and
find out just what we can -- that the present contract, if it can be
extended and what benefits we can give to the taxpayers here in
Collier County.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is -- this is going to sound like
we've sat down and discussed this before, but of course we haven't.
But I think that's a good, good suggestion.
The one thing that has struck me in all of my discussions and in
presentations we've received before the productivity committee is that
we have probably the lowest cost solid waste collection in the State of
Florida for the level of service that we have, and that the level of
satisfaction with the service seems to be quite high. And in order to
evaluate what improvements we could expect in a competitive
procurement, I think it's almost essential that we know what we can
get through negotiation first.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just like any business that you run,
if the business is running efficiently and you feel that you've got the
best bottom line going, then I think that we need to make sure that we
266
""~----,.
June 8, 2004
continue to explore that arena. Because if we're getting a good level
of service, we're getting very low complaints.
What's your relationship with Waste Management as far as them
producing for you, Jim?
MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony, Public Utilities
Administrator.
We're generally satisfied with the level of service, as well as the
cost as depicted in the charts that we've provided you in terms of
comparison of our levels of service, as well as the direct cost to the
county for those services. Certainly there are items within that
contract that we would seek to improve in terms of its service
responsiveness and other areas that over the period of several years
since the last time we sat down and extended or renegotiated that
contract. We would seek to do that to make it even better.
So again, my point is that we are generally satisfied with their
service. We would seek under any option, whether you direct us to
continue to go through a competitive process or through a
renegotiation process to improve the current contract and to ensure
that we sustain at the best possible price the level of service that we
have, as outlined in your executive summary.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have any speakers on this subject?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am, we have four. Mario Valle? He will
be followed by Larry Berg.
MR. VALLE: Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is, for the
record, Mario Valle and I'm today representing the Golden Gate
Estates Area Civic Association.
At our last general membership meeting, the association voted
overwhelmingly to recommend to the Board of County
Commissioners that the current two districts be maintained and that
the board negotiate with Waste Management fora level option B
service with the 64-gallon recycling bin.
The association felt that the county has the best level of service
267
June 8, 2004
for the price we are currently paying. The association also feels very
strongly that it is in its best interest of its members that we maintain
the current two districts. Anything additional is just adding overhead
and, therefore, artificially increasing the cost for pickup.
The association also felt the option level B service would
encourage additional recycling, thereby increasing the life of the
current landfill.
Also, as a contractor and a business owner in this community, I
know that one of the things that makes our company, our Creative
Homes, extremely successful is the fact that we've been able to
maintain our current subcontractors over the course of the last eight
years of which we've been in business. When you maintain the current
subcontractors, you develop a better relationship, a better rapport, and
thereby give your customers a better -- a product at the end. And I
think that's the same analogy that I would like to produce and give you
as an analogy for your consideration today.
I thank you for your time, Madam Chairperson, and allowing
these remarks to be entered into the record.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thanks for coming back, Mario.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Larry Berg. He will be
followed by Terri Douglas.
MR. DOUGLAS: We waive.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Mr. Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good evening, Commissioners and staff,
representatives from Waste Management. My name is Bob
Krasowski.
I'm almost shocked here, I've been talking with the staff about
what the proposal and presentation was going to involve here today,
and I was led to believe that you would be considering putting out a
request for proposals and bid documents to draw in proposals from
various bidders to service our waste collection, recycling
improvements as a component and considering the two districts that
268
June 8, 2004
exist now and the war of breaking the county down into three districts.
There's some justification for doing that with our population growth,
and it would be something that would be worth considering and
getting some input from other companies on.
I think that Collier County residents could benefit greatly from
going out to bid on this whole operation. It's an enormous expense,
it's an enormous operation. I do believe as well that the Waste
Management does provide a pretty good service. I'm not going to
bash them for anything in particular. But it would certainly be of
benefit socially, economically and politically for the people in this
community to know that there's enough independence in this
government to analyze options. And to just extend this contract the
way it is without the benefit of knowing what other people might --
what service might provide is really, really a sad, sad situation. This
should go out to bid.
The -- this Golden Gate Civic Association, I talked to somebody
that was at that meeting. There were very few people here. It hardly
represents the thinking of the community. And there was a
presentation by Mr. Y onkosky, by the County, and the young lady
from -- representing Waste Management was there as well. So they --
the people there got a presentation, but not necessarily a diverse one.
Here we are the fifth -- we have the fifth lowest rates in all these
counties here. Here's a document that was prepared by Red Oak, I
believe it is, Consulting, which is made up of Rob French, Daniel
Deitch and Steve Shuarez (phonetic), who are Malcolm Pirnie people.
It's a subsidiary of Malcolm Pirnie. Somehow they got the contract to
do this. I have a question about that. I'd like to have that explained to
me.
But we're the fifth least expensive county. But much of that is
based on the fact that our landfill tipping fees are so low. And that's --
I don't think that's necessarily a good idea. Maybe we should have
them a little higher. We could charge a dollar more a ton and fund the
269
June 8, 2004
operation of the county to help businesses recycle.
I hope you will consider, and not only consider but pursue what
the -- what seems to be your path has been to this point, and put out a
request for proposals on the specific design that we think would
benefit us here. Bring in some outsiders. This is a very closed system
you have here. We've always promoted that some consultants that we
had identified with and that were zero waste knowledgeable people
that had experience in designing maximum diversion strategies, things
that fit right into our strategy of maintaining the longevity of the
landfill, that we bring some people in on that.
There are people available that have done plans where you use
multiple franchises. In Hawthorne, California and other states and
places, there's a number of them that have been done. I do believe that
we'd benefit greatly from that happening.
You know, I'm really frustrated and disappointed that this county
doesn't have more of a balance, political balance between Democrats,
Republicans, blue, green, whatever, because then these issues would
get more of a debate and there'd be more of a discussion of them.
Right now everything is so monotheistic -- or mono culture here that
there's very little mix-up on things, and stuff like this can, you know,
can occur. It would be a sad day if we don't go the RFP route and get
bids in to look at what our options are.
Thank you for your attention to my comments. If you have any
questions, I'll be glad to discuss them with you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I assume that at one time, Robert,
that you were a businessman and you were in business, right?
MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, I was an employee.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. And of course your
employer made sure that he was looking always at the bottom line to
deliver the best service for the lowest cost price. And if we look at
what we have here in Collier County, we probably got very good,
270
June 8, 2004
excellent service. I get very few reports about garbage not being
picked up. And as being in a political arena, most politicians will tell
you the most important thing is to make sure the garbage is picked up.
And since I get less complaints and we look at the bottom line,
and if we're the fourth or the fifth lowest in the State of Florida, right
there should tell you that I think we're getting a very good bang for
our buck and that we should continue. Now--
MR. KRASOWSKI: That's because you have a cheap landfill,
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, it's also not so much the
cheap landfill. If you look at -- we're also looking at -- and Waste
Management has been working with county staff in regards to making
sure that we extend the life of that landfill. So all of this contributes to
lower price of waste for all of the citizens here. And I think that not
only what Waste Management's doing here in the majority of Collier
County, but also what the group that is working out in Immokalee,
they also have very low services.
And I can tell you that I also had John Y onkosky come to my
group that I have once a month, which consists of presidents of
property owners that are homeowner presidents of different property
owners, and they were quite amazed at the -- when they showed them
basically the status of where we are today, they were amazed and they
said why should we change if we're getting a good bang for our buck.
MR. KRASOWSKI: And I'm saying to you that we're not. And
the only way you're going to know that is to go to competitive bidding
so you can hear from someone other than the service provider we now
have that's been working so tightly under contract with this closed
system here. The only way you're going to get outsiders to give you a
different perspective, you know -- that's all I can say.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think there has been some
communities that did and they found out that in the long run when
they ended up going out for bid it cost them a whole lot more, and
271
June 8, 2004
there was also a lot of litigation that got involved in it. So to me that's
cost to the taxpayers that I think is unacceptable.
MR. KRASOWSKI: And please don't be scared off by what's
happening in Sarasota. I know there's lawsuits between the
community there -- and I don't have details, so I can't go into it very
far, but I hope that's not what's preventing you from pursuing outside
bids. That would be a shame if we're being backed off.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I don't think that -- that's not
the whole --
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. Well, I appreciate your comments.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Did you have anything else, Mr.
DeLony?
MR. DeLONY: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I like the idea of going to negotiation and
seeing kind of -- right now we are all so satisfied. We have a quick
response in case there are any problem areas. I figure -- how many
times people have gone in to fix something when it isn't broken in the
first place and really have ended up with egg on their face and a lot
poorer of a product afterwards. So I just -- I feel if we can negotiate a
-- I hate to say a deal. If we can negotiate a good contract that you
feel you want to bring back to us, and especially with us being the
fifth lowest in all of the state with our rates, I mean, that's just great in
itself, especially with being such a wealthy county. I think if you go
forward and negotiate a good contract for us and bring it back, I would
be very happy with that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That's my motion, and I've got a
second from Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's the first part of
everything we have to deal with.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other thing is, if you just even
look at what the city charges, and they don't have the level of service
272
June 8, 2004
that we presently have, and so that's a -~
CHAIRMAN FIALA: They come and pick it up in their yard.
MR. MUDD: I wouldn't go that far.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They come into my kitchen and
pack it all up.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, right. They clean your
refrigerator, too.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's a good service you get from
the city, let me tell you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: One thing to remember is that if we
go into negotiation, we always have the opportunity to go for
competitive procurement if we don't get where we want to go, okay?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it's not like we're waiving any
options here. It's just that we're being prudent in the way we're
approaching the process.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's exactly right.
So we have a motion on the floor and a second.
MR. DeLONY: Well, one thing, Madam Chair? Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, I was going to pick up on what Mr.
Coy Ie said, not knowing he was going to say it, but I will. And that is
that the utilities staff and John Y onkosky's department have looked
very closely -- not only of course do they have a significant report and
recommendation to you, which you've had the opportunity to review
even prior to the meeting today, but Mr. Coyle is absolutely correct
that if you give direction to staff at this point to negotiate with the
on-line service provider, you've made no commitment. And in fact
you have a requirement under the purchasing policy that because of
the fact that a contract of this type is clearly above the thresholds
requiring competition generally, a competitive review and solicitation
process, that you will need to look for the report from the staff to
273
June 8, 2004
come back to you to make a decision that is in the best interests of the
citizens of Collier County to waive the purchasing policy, which
otherwise requires competitive selection.
So you will have the opportunity when staff comes back to you,
subsequent to negotiation with Waste Management, to make that
infonned decision, and it will be at that point in time that Jim DeLany,
John Y onkosky and the County Attorney will be advising you through
the process so that you make an infonned decision consistent with the
purchasing policy at that point in time.
So there are significant checks and balances still in place to be
implemented, and we'll be sure you're there once you have some
further infonnation to determine what is in the best interests of the
citizens of Collier County. And that's language straight from our
purchasing policy. Just wanted to get that on the record for you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, we have a motion on the floor and
a second.
Mr. DeLony, did you have anything else to say?
MR. DeLONY: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
eN 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That is a 4-0, thank you.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, we will come back in September
with at least some kind of a draft contract or at least in principle what
we've been able to negotiate. And the -- and we'll also come back
with a comparison of how that basic contract basically plumbs up
against the other counties in the state. And we will back out the
disposal cost, i.e., the landfill or the incinerator or whatever it is, so
274
June 8, 2004
that we get at the straight collection costs, so that we'll be able to
determine if we're getting a very favorable rate at that particular time
so you'll have an idea to figure out if you're getting a good deal or not.
Because, you know, when it all boils down to and you've got to
renegotiate a contract, you've got some folks that say well, how do
you know you got a good deal or not? Well, what you do is you look
around and see how everybody else is doing who went' out there and
negotiated contracts and how much they're paying, and that's how
you'll determine if you're getting a good deal or not.
I will tell you, I think this is a prudent particular way of doing it.
And the reason for it is if you go out to bid, okay, and the bids come
back and they're not good, okay, then it puts you in a bad situation. It
puts you in a different hand that you're dealing with if you're trying to
renegotiate a contract. It's best not to know what those are. It's best to
figure out the best deal you can get with an extension to this contract
and then basically do a comparison against other counties and what
they're paying and then make a determination of what you want to do
next.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd. Okay. Yes?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We still have to deal with a
couple of other elements on here. That's the districts, the amount of
districts. And I would recommend -- I would make a motion that we
go with two districts.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll second that.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, we have that as a 4-0.
275
June 8, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then the other thing would be
the four collection options, and I'd make a motion that we go with the
current --
MR. DeLONY: Commissioner, if I might. Jim DeLany for the
record.
Sir, with that direction that you've given me, I would like, if I
might, allow the negotiation team to have some flexibility and come
back to you with pricing data against those options. If we go with
one, then well, that would be fine. I wonder if we wanted to allow the
negotiation process to have as much flexibility or are we looking for a
specified end state? That's the only thing I would ask --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll tell you right now, the public
out there will not accept one day a week pickup for garbage, they just
won't.
MR. DeLONY: All right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've heard this from more and
more people -- because I thought it was a good idea, I could do with
one day, but I've met no one out there that supports that.
MR. DeLONY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My thoughts is is that we go
ahead and give directions that we keep the current service, and
enhance it by adding the cart for recyclables.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or enhance it any other way we
can enhance it. I think that's the objective, right?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, don't tie their hands.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So how about if we just give them
direction rather than motion on that and --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, that's fine. I can live with
that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- suggest to them that we --
MR. DeLONY: I understand the intent of the board is to
maintain the level of service we currently have or enhance it and come
276
June 8, 2004
back with pricing data with regard to those enhancements so the board
can make second decisions with regard to that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, but any way you can beat
the price down, do it. Show them no mercy.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. Again, but we have four options that
were in your packet with regard to the way we would collect. They
have pros and cons.
I agree with you, sir, there are -- each of them have strengths and
each of them have something less than a strength. I think working
through the negotiation process, we could come back with a series of
decisions and recommendations if we are allowed to do that in the
negotiation process.
Mr. Mudd? That would be my recommendation.
The only thing I would like to get direction from the board with
on the recommendations, I would very much like to get board
consideration and approval for the current billing process. I believe
that's a very important aspect --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me just jump in right here and tell you
that it's such a good process, why would we ever want to fix it? I
mean, it's not broken now. We've finally gotten almost 100 percent of
our collections, and in years past we were scrambling to try and get 60
percent of them. Let's just stay with that.
And I would suggest, Commissioners, that you go along with that
same proposal, collect them on the tax bill as we do now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You need that in the form of a
motion or just direction?
MR. WEIGEL: No.
MR. DeLONY: Mr. Mudd? I think I have board direction and
consensus with regard to it. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good work.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good.
277
June 8, 2004
Item #10D
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO
WELLFIELD RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENTS AND
EXP ANSION, RFP 04-3593, AND APPROVE AN INITIAL WORK
ORDER UNDER THE SAME AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT
OF $4,999,218 ENCOMPASSING PROJECTS 70158, 70892, 70899,
11002, 7LOOh, 7~ 75005 - AEEROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Item 10D, which
IS --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 10E?
MR. MUDD: D. D as in Delta.
That is a recommendation to award a professional service
agreement for engineering services related to wellfield reliability
improvements and expansion, RFP 04-3593, and approve an initial
work order under the same agreement in the amount of $4,999,218,
encompassing projects 70158, 70892, 70899, 71002, 71006, 71011,
and 75005. And Mr. Karl Boyer will present.
MR. BOYER: Hello, Commissioners, my name is Karl Boyer.
I'm here to present to you, make a recommendation to approve Item
10D.
I've prepared a presentation, we can go through that. It
embellishes upon information that's already written in your executive
summary, or we could skip the presentation and go quickly to
questions, provided that you'll allow me to take make a couple of
statements just for the record. Board's pleasure.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I would say just make your statements
and go to the record. We're all pretty well prepared. Everybody reads
through their agenda.
MR. BOYER: I just have four sentences to read into the record.
278
June 8, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. BOYER: The initial work order includes services for a new
line item, project 75005, called wellfield program management. The
approach was generally contemplated in the master plan. However,
the costs were not specifically factored into the master plan's capital
improvement plan. I need to bring this out to you and tell you that we
didn't anticipate the dollars being spent for this type of delivery
system.
But the master plan does include some contingencies to
accommodate unforeseen work such as program management fees.
Services for the program management in the initial work order will
cover the overall contract administration and quality assurance of
seven different projects all being clustered together. And also the
coordination and project management for each individual project
during the first two years of this eight-year contract. Thank you very
much. That concludes my comments.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would certainly hope that one of
the advantages of pulling together all seven projects into a single
contract is to reduce costs.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because it would appear to me that
they can be managed together a lot less expensively than they can be
managed separately.
MR. BOYER: That's right.
MR. DeLONY: If you look at this chart here, and I think was in
your packet -- for the record, Jim DeLony, Public Utilities
Administrator.
Absolutely. I think that this approach and deployment to solve
which is really the most challenging aspect of our water program, and
that is to make sure that we have looked hard and long at integrating
all of our resources, both in terms of technical capability and natural
279
June 8, 2004
resources, in terms of the water supply available to us. And we look
at this holistically, where in the past I believe we've been looking at
this a piece at a time or just in time. This is -- this fully envisions out
to the end of our master plan how we're going to bring raw water
supply into our system and how to do that in the most optimal and
technical and regulatory way. And that's what we're trying to
accomplish here today, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I hope that this is an integral
element of the effort that you and I have discussed in the past where
we should get a comprehensive plan with a schedule that will permit
us to evaluate the expenditure of dollars against a schedule and the
objectives of those projects, rather than being confronted month after
month with project after project after project without ever really tying
these things together. It's very difficult to get a good handle on where
we are with all of these major projects.
And just so the other commissioners know, Mr. DeLony has
indicated, and I don't know that this is a commitment by staff yet, but
has indicated that hopefully before the end of the year we should be
able to have a comprehensive plan or schedule of all of these projects
so that we can monitor them much more easily. Is that still a valid
comment?
MR. DeLONY: First of all, we've answered that question, but
we've answered it not in discrete terms if you talk to it in terms of our
master planning.
As you may recall, in the master planning effort that we provided
to the board and the board so graciously approved here about two
weeks ago, there's a capital plan in that master plan. It lays out
essentially in five-year increments what are the deliverables to sustain
compliance and meet demand for the system.
That master plan then, you take that raw data, which is
essentially a raw script, and then you apply these kinds of tools to it
and it becomes more finite in terms of its actual fiscal year execution,
280
.~----
June 8, 2004
both in terms of timing of technical effort and financial resources.
That's what you're asking for is for me to come in here and say
okay, in fiscal year -- in the capital budget that you're going to look at
here in the next couple months as we go through the budget process
should have all that information laid out for you.
Now, I can promise you, given the size of that budget, it is very
complex, it is all -- there is a lot of stuff. But that is where we will
bring -- and have been working hard, sir, to meet your intent. Which I
believe is the only right thing to do from a management standpoint.
That capital budget will lay out those bits and pieces in an orderly way
that gives you that.
Now, by our procurement rules, or by other rules, I've got to
bring those back to you one at a time. And every time -- we've talked
about this before. Our current rules require me to come back multiple
times to the board for the same project but for different aspects of that
project. I don't think I can eliminate that. Maybe I can make it more
coherent with the big script and then the little pieces coming in.
Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, maybe to help you out a little bit,
when Mr. DeLany or public utilities comes back with a particular item
to have a -- an attachment that basically says and highlights here's
where it is in your budget that you approved 11 months ago, here's
where it is highlighted and have another attachment that says here's
where it is in your master plan, your 20-year program, so you know
exactly where it is so that you basically run that thread of continuity
from items that you previously approved so that you know exactly
where that is.
MR. DeLONY: Mr. Mudd, currently we do that, but I -- you
know, again it's a big pie.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I could just finish up on this
thought process --
MR. DeLONY: Sure.
281
June 8, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- then I'll be completed.
I think that's fine, but I believe for our purposes, in addition to
that, it would be very helpful if we had a timeline that showed when
you came before us to get authorization for a proj ect, when you came
forward to get -- to put out an RFP, when you selected the contractor,
and all those kinds of things. And that way we could track projects
and we would know where we are on that timeline.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, I understand your intent. I could work
for that end state. I think the project management business process
which you all have given me some resources to achieve should be able
to give us that type of asset visibility very shortly. So we'll strive to
do just that. That's a commitment we've made.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Basically I'll just pick up where
Commissioner Coyle was and that's exactly, we want to make sure
that we have a five-year plan that continually moves out five years and
we know exactly where we are on our commitment and what the
resources are and the product that we plan to deliver.
MR. DeLONY: Right. Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Great.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, so as we move forward then, do I
hear amotion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And a second? I'll second it.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a 3-0, but it's still unanimous.
282
June 8, 2004
Item #10E
RESOLUTION 2004-205 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF
PROPERTY BY GIFT OR PURCHASE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ASSEMBLING LAND TO FACILITATE IMPROVEMENTS TO
CANALS AND PROPERTIES IN THE EAST NAPLES AREA
SPECIFICALL Y LOCATED WITHIN THE LEL Y AREA
STORMW A TER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. FISCAL IMPACT:
$3J 0,000 - A DOITED
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am, that brings us to item number IO(E),
and that is the -- adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition of
property by gift or purpose (sic) for the -- for the purpose of
assembling land to facilitate improvements to canals and properties in
the East Naples area specifically located within the Lely area
stormwater improvement project. And that's at Commissioner Coyle's
request.
And I can help you here a little bit. I know he's not there on the
dais right now. His particular concern is he didn't like the fact that we
were delegating to staff the ability to acquire the property without the
board getting to see it. And that bothered him a little bit. He basically
said well, why can't -- once you acquire the property, why can't you
bring that particular item back as a consent item if it's small, just so
the board knows that it's being acquired and get their approval? And
that's what Commissioner Coyle's concerns were with this particular
item, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Gregg?
MR. STRAKALUSE: If I could address that item. I'm Gregg
Strakaluse, for the record. And I'm also here with Gerry Kurtz from
stormwater management.
As I understand it, this particular gift and purchase resolution
283
June 8, 2004
process has been --
MR. MUDD: Do me a favor, Gregg, stop for a second.
Commissioner Coyle, we're on Item 10(E), and I just related to
the board that your concern on 16(B)( 18) in moving it forward was the
fact that in this particular proposal by staff that the board would be
delegating the authority to acquire those properties without coming
back to the board with that process.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's my concern. That's my only
concern. And I don't see that as being a big impediment to getting the
properties. In fact, you can come back in if you wish in a blanket
approval of a number of policies -- of properties. But I suspect you're
not going to know what those are all at one time, you're going to pick
them up a little bit at a time.
MR. STRAKALUSE: Correct. We'll go after them one by one.
We've got multiple staff working on multiple parcels. There are a lot
of details associated with closing out one of the properties, and there
are closing deadlines by which county staff need to make.
As I understand it, this process has been in place since 1990, this
different purchase type of resolution process. And it is truly meant to
streamline the process and save time and --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, explain to me what it's doing,
because it looks to me like you're trying -- you're saying you were
going to reduce the need to revisit the board with consent agenda
items requesting ministerial approvals.
MR. STRAKALUSE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're essentially suggesting that
requesting the board's final approval is an unnecessary step.
MR. STRAKALUSE: Through this gift and purchase resolution,
we're asking for the board's approval to acquire property generally for
the LSIP project, Lely stonnwater improvement project, without
specific detail as to the legal sketches and descriptions.
By moving forward with this, you'd be giving staff authority to
284
._.._----"~.""
June 8, 2004
acquire those properties and meet the closing deadlines also without
providing those sketches and descriptions but fulfilling the board's
direction to acquire property for the specific project. It's something
similar we do with roads as well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But how do we know what the cost
is, the appraisals of the property and those kinds of things?
MR. STRAKALUSE: We are bound by the limitations of this
specific gift and purchase resolution, which is $310,000 for the parcels
that have been estimated for this particular project. We would not be
allowed to go above that particular limitation, and that is for multiple
parcels throughout the corridor. We're generally talking about minor
strips of land along the flowways in the stormwater area, multiple
parcels. So you would essentially be seeing several executive
summaries come before you for approval which would require several
hours of staff time in preparation, and we'd have to extend our closing
deadlines as well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I appreciate this is well intentioned,
but you're losing me. I get a lot of these in these packets. I see dozens
and dozens of diagrams of property that is being acquired for
right-of-way, for roads, and some of them are for $10,000 up to a
million or more. And I don't understand why in this case we're trying
to circumvent that process.
MR. STRAKALUSE: We're not trying to circumvent any
particular process. This gift and purchase resolution is a process that
has been established since 1990. If this were a condemnation
resolution, you would see the specific details associated with the
acquisition.
This gift and purchase resolution is a way for county staff to
approach property owners and to request the acquisition of property
for a specific proj ect, as opposed to going in and demanding and
condemning, if necessary.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, how do I as a commissioner
285
June 8, 2004
detennine that the price that has been offered for this property is
legally justifiable?
MR. STRAKALUSE: Anything above $100,000 in value would
need an appraisal from a certified registered appraiser. Anything
below $100,000, we have county staff with the expertise in appraisal
utilizing comparable appraisals and comparable land values and
applying those land values to properties under $100,000. We actually
do have a certified land appraiser on staff.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'm not convinced, and I
will vote against it, if that's the way you wish to proceed, but I'll leave
that up to the other board members.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Board members?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, I can't quite agree
with you, Commissioner Coyle. I know you had concerns on it, but I
think it's been adequately addressed. I make motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll second that motion.
Okay, we have motion to approve by Commissioner Coletta, a
second by Commissioner Fiala. Any further discussion?
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's a 3-1. And thank you.
Item#10F
AUTHORIZE PURCHASE OF PARK FIXTURES FROM
WAUSAU TILE AT A COST OF $37,826.38 FOR PARK
286
June 8, 2004
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Item 10(F), and
that's to authorize purchase of park fixtures from Warsaw -- no,
Wausau Tile at a cost of $37,826.38 for park projects and
maintenance. And Ms. Marla Ramsey, the interim administrator for
public services division, will present.
MS. RAMSEY: Good evening, Commissioners. We're in a little
bit after quandary on this particular item. We have used Wausau Tile
for over 11 years to provide us with garbage cans and bollards and
picnic tables and whatnot for our park system. Most of our park
system contains these products throughout the system consistency.
In February and March, the state decided that they're no longer
going to honor snaps agreements, and when the new -- when the snaps
agreements that are currently in process expire they're not going to
renew them because they're starting a new system called an
E-procurement. The problem with the E-procurement is is it doesn't go
out for competitive bid, so our purchasing department isn't
comfortable with purchasing off of that process.
So we worked with the Wausau Tiles to see if we could negotiate
with them a price that's the same as the snaps was in February and
March of this year to be able to purchase our annual replacements for
our parks systems currently this year.
This is a concrete product. It has a six- to eight-week lead time
on it. And at this point in time, we're asking for a waiver of the
purchasing policy so that we can get the product in before the end of
the fiscal year.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Who pulled it? I don't even know.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think I probably --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Coletta
pulled this particular item because they were concerned that we
weren't going out for competitive bid.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And since that time, I have learned
that what they're doing is giving us the same price that would have
287
-.,----
June 8, 2004
been given to us under the snaps agreement that has expired.
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand that, and I think that
under the circumstances I can accept this particular process.
My concern now is what do you do? Are you going to go out for
competitive procurement and try to get a list of suppliers that you can
buy from in the future? '
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. We're working with purchasing
right now to do an RFP . We'll try and get three or four companies on
our own contract so that we can purchase directly from them.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would like to do two things:
One, I tell you, we'd save a lot of time if you just put a little more
detail on the summary agenda, and we would have avoided this whole
thing and then you would have been able to go home at a decent time.
And the second thing I'd like to do is make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor from
Commissioner Coletta to approve and a second by Commissioner
Halas.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Item #10H
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO.1
TO CONTRACT 04-3622 WITH HANNULA LANDSCAPING,
288
June 8, 2004
INC., FOR RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK LANDSCAPE
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is Number, 10(H),
and that is a recommendation to approve change order Number 1 to
contract 04-3622 with Hannula Landscaping, Inc. for Rattlesnake
Hammock landscape beautification, project Number 65021. And Ms.
Diane Flagg from the transportation division will present
And the reason this is on the regular agenda is because it came in
late because we had a change to condition on the site of doing the
landscape, we ran into rock.
MS. FLAGG: Good evening, Commissioners. This item is to
approve a change order and budget amendment for the landscape
project on Rattlesnake Hammock.
Rattlesnake Hammock is a road segment that was built prior to
the county standard of constructing the medians with sleeving and
appropriate soil when the road is widened, consequently recognizing
that we did anticipate this and we included this in the original bid as
an alternate but we didn't award it until we confirmed that we did hit
rock. Well, we hit rock and now it necessitates the need for the
change order.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I make the motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, I have a motion on the floor to
approve and a second by Commissioner Coletta. Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's unanimous, 3-0.
289
June 8, 2004
While we're on the record, I want to just tell you what a great job
Pam Lulich is doing. I'm telling you, I'm just so proud to work with
her, and she really represents us and our county government to those
people out there in such a friendly way that she makes us all look
good. So I'll just say that on the record while we're here.
MS. FLAGG: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #14A
TO APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT OF $5,000 FOR THE
EXPENDITURE OF MONIES FROM FUND 187-
BA YSHORE/GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE FOR EXPENSES RELATED
TO THE HALDEMAN CREEK NATIONAL ART FESTIVAL. ALL
FUNDS WILL BE REIMBURSED TO THE NAPLES ART
ASSOCI.A.I.lON - AE.EROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Item 14, which is
Airport Authority and! or Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Community
Redevelopment Agency. And I added the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle
Community Redevelopment Agency to this particular item. It used to
just say airport authority, because you only had one independent
outside of the County Attorney and the County Manager on contract,
but you now have two. You have not only the airport authority
director, but you also have the director -- or the executive director of
the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency.
And there are two items here before you today. The first one is
the Board of County Commissioners will be acting as the community
redevelopment agency in this particular case, and it's to approve a
budget amendment of $5,000 for the expenditures of monies for Fund
187, the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle for expenses related to the
Haldeman Creek National Art Festival. All funds will be reimbursed
to the Naples Art Association.
290
June 8, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I make a motion --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve -- go ahead, I'll
second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I'll make a motion to approve and
a second by Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's a 4-0.
Item #14B
TO APPROVE THE INCREASED FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT
OF $64,000 FOR THE SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT AND
$48,000 FOR THE IMPACT FEE ASSISTANCE GRANT
PROGRAMS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE
BA YSHORE/GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE LOCAL
REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD; APPROVE THE
ATTACHED BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR THE TWO
GRANT PROGRAMS; AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY AND STAFF TO DRAFT ANY NECESSARY
AGREEMENTS, ORDINANCE, RESOLUTION LANGUAGE _
AEEROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 14(B). And again,
the Board of County Commissioners are acting as the community
redevelopment agency. And this is to improve the increased funding
in the amount of $64,000 for the site improvement grant and $48,000
291
June 8, 2004
for the impact fee assistance grant programs, as recommended by the
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle local redevelopment advisory board.
Approve the attached budget amendment requested for the two grants
programs and authorize the County Attorney and staff to draft any
necessary agreements, ordinance or resolution language.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, motion to approve and a second.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that also is passed.
Jim Mudd, way back on 12(B), I have a little note here that says
health care, and it was 16 --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (K).
CHAIRMAN FIALA: (K)(l).
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, when you talked about this
originally at the beginning, Mr. Weigel, the County Attorney,
explained to the Board of County Commissioners this particular item
that had to do with adult living facilities, and the board at that
particular time all voted to keep it on the consent agenda, and you
voted on it on the consent agenda.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Thank you so much.
MR. MUDD: And as I read the changes for today, when I got to
that particular item, I did mention that the board had decided to leave
it on the consent agenda, so we did it twice.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
292
_._---._---->..~
June 8, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, now as we -- before we wind up
this --
MR. MUDD: Sue, did we have any -- do we have any public
comment? Excuse me, ma'am.
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
Item #15A
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Before we wind this meeting up, I wanted
to just suggest, with the passing of President Reagan, we've had some
people -- and Marla, I'm so glad you're still here. Years ago I was
approached by a group of caregivers for Alzheimer's victims, and I'm
going to call them victims because that's what they are, who had
spoken with me and spoken with Marla about building what they
called was an Alzheimer's nook. And Marla at the time said she didn't
have money. They wanted to build this over in Sugden Park. But
what she's done instead is systematically picked away at it, built a
walking path and built a family bathroom and built a very nice area
for them.
And with the passing of President Reagan, I've gotten a message
here that this small group of people would love to know if we would
consider dedicating that nook to President Ron Reagan and Nancy, his
caregiver. And I was wondering if it would be okay with you if I
brought that up on a -- as an agenda item?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would strongly support it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, very good. Thank you so much.
That -- by the way, that by request is from a friend of mine, his name
is Dr. Dan Jackson and his friend, Marion Brady. Thank you.
Okay. Now, let's see, do we have any comments from our
County Attorney?
293
June 8, 2004
MR. WEIGEL: Just that your County Manager will pick up on a
transmittal that both he and I received this past week relat -- from the
Sheriffs Department relating to our false alarm ordinance. And Jim is
going to talk to you about that. I have a copy for the court reporter.
Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Okay, Madam Chair? In the letter that the County
Manager -- or the County Attorney -- we've changed roles a couple of
times tonight, I think -- is talking about is this particular letter, and it
reads: Gentlemen, attached is a proposed -- a proposal reflecting
change to the Collier County ordinance 2001-56, the false alann
ordinance. The Collier County Sheriffs Office is requesting these
changes be brought up to the Board of County Commissioners this
month to confinn -- or to confonn with the proposed addition to the
Collier County Code Enforcement special master ordinance, which is
being submitted this month. The board will have to approve these
changes to the ordinance. We would appreciate your review of the
proposed changes and after review bring it back.
We're basic coming back to him, and what he's talking about, the
code enforcement special master program. We have the ability to
bring on a special master and probably an assistant. And all those
fines that we get in code enforcement, we can basically hear them with
the special master. We can collect those dollars instead of having
those dollars get funneled off to Tallahassee where we don't -- we
have to pay for a filing fee. So we have an administrative charge
going under the procedures now, and then the money that they collect
goes away from us based on the Article 5 issues that we have right
now.
And what we'd like to do is come up with a program where we
could set up a special master, we can collect what fees that the Sheriff
has that they can collect and our code enforcement fees and collect
those and keep those dollars in Collier County. And then -- and
circumvent paying administrative fees on top of losing our fine fees to
294
June 8, 2004
someplace else.
And that's what we're getting at the special master. The special
master program will be provided to the Board of County
Commissioners on 22 June. I guess what the Sheriffs asking for here
is direction from the Board of County Commissioners to the County
Attorney to modify that ordinance so that we can also collect these
false alarm fees for the Sheriff with the special master that you'll see
on the 22nd.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let's do it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, great idea. I like the idea.
Can we extend this to traffic fines?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: In certain ones I think you can.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Really?
MR. MUDD: Okay, and we'll discuss that a little bit more.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. That's wonderful. Great.
Good job.
MR. MUDD: That takes care of that particular item.
One of the things that I'm debating right now in the County
Managers' organization is since we've lost Mr. Dunnuck and Mr.
Dunnuck had a good head for EMS, is to maybe move EMS back into
Emergency Management under Mr. Summers. And the reason I'm
considering that particular move is the fact that we're putting a
emergency management building out there just north of Davis at Santa
Barbara and we're putting EMS in that building where Mr. Summers
will be headquartered. That is not going to be the place that the public
services division administrator will be housed, he'll still be over in
Building H. It would probably be a good move.
One of the things that are also going on, right now, and
Commissioner Coletta is well aware, is the fact that -- and you
commissioners are aware -- we're under negotiations with the East
295
June 8, 2004
Naples Fire Department to see if they want to take under their wing
the two dependent fire districts that we have in Conier County. If that
happens, Mr. Summers will lose those two departments from him and
will free up some of his time in order to devote that to EMS. I wanted
to make sure you're aware of that.
I will keep you informed as those particular deliberations go on
with the County Manager's office and Mr. Summers and as we work
that out. But I wanted you to know that we're thinking about that.
And I will tell you, I'm getting every -- you know, people know
that the public services division administrator position is open. And
I'm getting every retired firefighter from all over the country because
they think they know a whole lot about EMS. But I'm not too sure
they know anything about parks or libraries or anything, while we're
talking about that. While I bring up libraries -- so I wanted to make
sure you were aware of that.
While we're talking about libraries, Mr. Jones went into hospice
today. He's in a coma. So I would ask you to keep him in your
prayers. I think he has had a long fight, and I hope to God that God is
merciful, no matter which way He decides. But I want to make sure
that you keep Mr. Jones in your thoughts and prayers. And we're
going to talk a little bit about death and near death experiences as we
continue, because I have several more announcements to make.
The next thing I'd like to talk about is the summer schedule, to
make sure that everybody is aware of where we are this summer and
where we're going, so that your schedules can be freed up. I'll let you
know, the last regular BCC meeting is June 22nd. You have budget
hearings on the 29th and 30th of June, and then we have a board
meeting on the 27th of July. And right now, still to this day, it looks
like that's going to be a one-day meeting. But it looks like it's going to
start -- it might start pretty early in the morning, depending on--
MS. FILSON: No, they decided on the 26th for the V AB. And
that win begin at 9:00.
296
June 8, 2004
MR. MUDD: Okay. And then we'll basically return for regular
board meetings starting in September. We're working on the second
and the fourth Tuesdays. And then you've got some budget hearings
that have been scheduled by -- when you came up with your budget
guidance, you'd put those down for the 9th and the 23rd. So I wanted
you to make sure that you're still aware of that particular schedule.
MS. FILSON: Did you mention the 28th, Mr. Mudd, as a
tentative date?
MR. MUDD: The 28th is a rollover day. I did mention that it
looks like the 27th will be enough. Hopefully we won't have to go to
the 28th.
We made a mistake in the County Manager's organization, and it
was brought to my attention this morning. We forgot to bring an item
on this agenda. And it had to do with the boot drive for Muscular
Dystrophy Association. Now, the dates that they had requested were
in July and September and whatnot so it wasn't a major mess-up, but I
will tell you that last week was a little difficult as far as the County
Manager was concerned. I was out of town on an emergency. I had a
death in the family. And so we had one slip through the cracks. So I
just let you know that before the meeting was over today, I'd signed an
apology to Mr. Mat Johnson over at the East Naples Fire Department.
I told him we messed up. I asked him for his -- I guess for his
forgiveness in this particular case. I told him we would get it back on
June 22nd. And I also offered him a time certain because they were
there this morning raring to go with about 10 firefighters, and we
really messed this one up. And my apologies to him, and I just want to
make sure we don't take missing a direction by the board to come back
at a certain time lightly. And this one just slipped through and I'm
sorry to those folks that I inconvenienced today.
Next item is -- you had mentioned during the meeting today
about coming back on June 22nd with a TDR bank discussion item but
297
June 8, 2004
you never gave us any direction. You said you were going to come
back at the end of 8(B) or 8(C) in order to discuss that, but you just
kind of left -- it was left hanging.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That was Bruce --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I told you you were going to forget
it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's right, you did tell us. '
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I told you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, and you were right. First time since
I've known you.
So what do we want to do with this? Bruce, you were --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Bruce, come on up for a
moment.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What's the options on this that
you were looking for for us to be able to look at?
MR. ANDERSON: To -- as you and I had discussed, to give
some direction to staff to look at the alternatives, including a TDR
bank, and with the goal in mind of having some kind of a workshop in
September with notice to owners of sending lands. We talked about
sending out a simple one-page letter, not a legalistic letter, trying to
explain the program to people and giving them a number to call if they
had questions.
I think one of the big problems is lack of education and
understanding about the program, because it's different than anything
we've had in Collier County before.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think that's the basis of the
whole thing, we're looking to bring it back, to be able to give some
consideration to a bank. I don't know where the money's going to
come from for this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: From developers.
MR. ANDERSON: It's going to come from developers.
298
June 8, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I guess the whole
question's going to be how orderly a fashion we purchase these things,
and it's got to be a purchase program from willing sellers. But then
also, two, to be able to come up with a date in September that we can
have a -- well, a workshop or a community meeting. Probably an
evening meeting would work best for these people to be able to attend.
It doesn't have to be a workshop, could just be a staff run meeting and
we can have the different options given to them. Need you there,
because a lot of this is your thought process. And I'll be happy to
attend, too. We'll find a location that's appropriate for these people to
be able to come to. If you're agreeable.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, fine with me.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think there was other people in
the community that was interested in this also. People from the
Conservancy, and they were also stating that we needed to get this
thing jump started. And they were in full agreement with your ideas
there. I'm not sure who came up with the idea, but anyway, the same
concept, and that is to educate and also to see if we can establish a
bank through the developers throwing money into this program.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I got to remind you, we got to
overcome one thing: The price of land has gone just right out of sight.
Where just a short time ago you could get a lot off DeSoto for like
about $6,000, you can't get one for less than 50 now. And so just give
you a comparison. These acreages, even the 40 acres out there are
going to be very attractive for homebuilders. And so we -- there's
competition for this. It's going to be -- the free market's going to enter
into it. This base that we set of $25,000 you're going to find is
artificially low. I don't know how we arrive at a price that's going to
be there. That's going to be a very interesting subject to broach when
the time comes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think there's only one way to
299
June 8, 2004
detennine the price and that's let the market set the price, quite
frankly. That's the way we do everything else we sell.
But I would suggest to you that the real problem is education,
and I don't think whatever we do with respect to this we should leave
it up to developers to get involved in that education process. I think
that's our responsibility.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Definitely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because I think that if, you know, I
were one of those property owners and somebody came and knocked
on my door and said look, I've got $100,000 here I want to give to
you, you don't have to move, you keep your property, you do
everything you've always been doing, you just have to promise you're
not going to build another building there, I'd think he's crazy and he's
got some scam working. And so -- and I probably wouldn't sell to
him, because I just couldn't believe that that could possibly be true.
And I believe that we as the government, if we could put together
something that is simple and maybe send it out in tax bills or some
other distribution.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, we got PIO officer.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Bruce can tell you the story
about the letter we did send out.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I know that one --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Go ahead, three pages.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- but that's the problem, we need
something simple, you know, something people can understand.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Channel it for the public relations
person to do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let's see what he can come up
with, something in a language everybody can understand.
MR. MUDD: So far what I've got from the board as far as
direction is concerned is to first of all get Mr. Schmitt with Mr. Bruce
300
June 8, 2004
Anderson to talk about this just a tad, okay, since he's not here, or to
listen to this tape.
The next is to set up some staff run meeting with some interested
stakeholders in this particular issue with Mr. Schmitt, along with our
PIO to see if there's a way to get this thing off of -- out of the blocks
and get us moving in the right direction.
And then basically to come back to the Board of County
Commissioners and let's set a date first meeting in September. We're
really jamming the 22nd and probably the 27th at this particular
juncture. Come back first meeting in September. If there's a bank
option or something that's very different than what we've got today, in
order to let the board know what that's going to be and get their
direction.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You might want to go back and
talk to Dr. Nicholas too, for --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you.
MR. MUDD: Next item, Commissioners, is the fact that you
basically said under a deadlock vote on the TDC items that the
non-county museum items to come back to the board with all TDC
grants. Some of those you've already approved. Your time has passed
for reconsideration.
May I suggest that we come back to you with a list of all of that
stuff on the 27th of July. Now, you're going to approve a TDC
budget, okay, that's already there. And I don't know why we do these
grants the way we do. I've always scratched my head about this. The
first time when I was in public utilities and got the beach side of the
house, I said why do we go to all this trouble in March when the board
has to go through a workshop in June and give the okay, and then
everybody's agreed to the price and all the items ahead of time. I'm
going, why are we even talking about a TDC budget and everything
301
June 8, 2004
else? Why don't -- you know, I will take a look at this. Mr. Wert is in
the hospital, he had double bypass surgery, okay. And so we're -- I
don't know what's going on with my directors right now, but I'm
praying for them a lot, okay? I need them to come back to work. And
so what I will say -- and he is doing fine, by the way.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is he here, right here?
MR. MUDD: I believe so. Is he in one of our hospitals here?
MR.OCHS: Yes, NCH.
MR. MUDD: NCH.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's a great heart hospital.
MR. MUDD: That's not a promotional. That's not a promotional
plug.
The -- and so as soon as he gets back, I'll talk to him. And what
wè might want to do is bring all of those grants back to you, like at the
summer meeting on the 27th so you get approval for those. And I'll
find out what reason why we can't do that so you get to see them all at
the same time. And you've already discussed them at a budget
workshop. And then you've got the whole picture and everybody isn't
in this, you know, stutter step mode, well, I've got part of them, I'm
still doing, I've already got some through, I'm not too sure what the
whole picture is. This way you'll get the -- you'll get the whole picture
when you do it and you'll get to see the budget and then get to do it on
the individual pieces. So we'll take a look at that one.
Next item is -- we're about ready, and you talk about public
participation, we're about ready to go out with a second iteration of
public awareness for the FEMA changes. And I want to make sure I
get the board's guidance on -- and I mean when it's out in the Estates
and we're out there and we're mailing, we're basically doing that with
unincorporated funds for the county. With this next iteration of
mailings and whatnot, we are going to not only do ,Marco Island and
the Vanderbilt Beach area and the Wiggins Pass area, but we're also
going to be doing a big part of Naples.
302
June 8, 2004
How do you want me to -- and I know my recent letter about
$18,000 for a utility thing went over with a slight bang over in the
City Hall. How do you want me to proceed with the funding of the
mailings for the particular items with the City of Naples?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I wasn't so much interested at
this point in time with the City of Naples. I was concerned about the
citizens of Collier County and the areas that would greatly affect
them, not only in Golden Gate Estates but all the low-lying areas and
the coastal high hazard areas. And I'm hoping that the county will --
has the resources to send letters out to hopefully all the homeowners to
let them know what the status is.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, this is going to come up
in increments. It's going to be one one time, another one another time.
The City of Naples is a partner with us in this venture with FEMA.
They put up "X" number of dollars in relation to what their services -_
their part of the services are. I mean, they've been an active partner
and they've been paying their share and I assume it's a fair share. So I
assume that if a mailing's going to go out and there's going to be
community meetings and there's going to be updates that it should be
something that goes through the City of Naples. They are an active
partner in this and they're paying their share of the whole thing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But you're asking how to pay for it; is that
correct?
MR. MUDD: No, ma'am, I just want to make sure that this
guidance is squared away. Because I know there was been some
commitments by the board, and I'm asking the board, are you doing
that carte blanche straight out of the county budget, or are you still
working that partnership issue?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, let me bring up something
303
June 8, 2004
here that might be impacted by this. At one of our workshops with the
city several months back, we did discuss the idea of a public relations
campaign of some kind where we would try to make the public aware
of the potential impacts of the FEMA, proposed FEMA changes, and
what it would do with respect to the character of their communities,
particularly on the coastal areas; that is, building buildings on stilts
and things like that and creating nonconfonning structures.
So the City of Naples has asked me fairly recently where we are
with respect to that program. And we haven't been moving very
quickly on it. And so I've asked the County Manager what we might
be able to do with respect to putting together some kind of a public
relations program for people along the coastal areas. And of course
there is a consideration of funding, you know, where is that funding
going to come from. And I think that's a decision that really has to be
made by this board and should not properly -- should not be made by
the staff because it's --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Agreed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I just bring that up because it
relates to what the County Manager is saying. And my interest in
being honest. and fair in all these issues, even though there might be
disputes between the governmental entities on some things, I think it's
important that we understand how we have to act together on these
things.
But very quickly, what we had in mind was to try to put together
something that says here's what your house is going to look like if you
want to build a house here anymore, and you had a house that you just
built last year, and you built it to FEMA requirements. Well, guess
what, now it's a nonconfonning structure and here's what the
implications are for that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How much tax dollars -- or how
much insurance dollars.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And how much is it going to cost
304
..~----,_."'_.....-....-
June 8, 2004
you. And we haven't told people that" you know. We've told people
in Golden Gate and further inland, as a matter of fact, look, hey, guys,
you're going to get hit. You're going to get hit with insurance
premiums you've never seen before. But on the coastal areas we've
never told them what it's going to do to them.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I know.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we don't want them to be
surprised, because number one, if we fail in fighting this FEMA
change, they're going to be shocked at what happens to them. But
secondly, if we succeed, they should be very appreciative of what
we've been able to do. So in order to accomplish either of those
things, we need --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Need an education.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We need an education. We need to
tell them what they're faced with so they can get prepared for it and
maybe get involved individually and start writing their Congressman
and getting people concerned about it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, there's two more elements
to this you've got to consider. One is the fact that there is an inherent
risk if we're not prepared. You know, FEMA is not an evil empire out
there. They've got some very good plans in place. And the only thing
they want to do is make sure that we're going to be adequately
protected so we can be under their plan.
The other part is is that FEMA has offered to be part of the
educational process. We haven't implemented that yet; we are the
behind the eight ball in that --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we should get started.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And right now the summer is
gone. I mean, there's no way you're going to get people to attend
meetings during the summer. It's difficult as anything. I think in
September we have to have some very active large community
meetings where we have everything ready to layout for them and we
305
June 8, 2004
have FEMA representatives there, we have the representatives from
the City of Naples. We hold them at several different locations,
because every place is different.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think what we ought to do is wait
until October, November to start this, because that's when we start--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, December is when the
ball falls, so you got to start moving before then.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, okay, I just want to make
sure that -- I've got a lot of residents that won't be here and they're
going to be included in this also.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What we do is we start on the
outside area where we have a population here now and move closer to
the coast as we get toward that later part of the year in November with
the meetings.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That sounds good to me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can -- you know, we're not going
to get big turnouts at these meetings. We've had a lot of meetings in
the past. I'm thinking more in terms of a mailing that goes out with a
utility bill or something like that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Or the county television station.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, both of them. But the utility
bills will frequently get to people who aren't even in town at this time
of the year. And if we were to put something together -- but I don't
want to bog down in a discussion of how we do it. If we could focus
on whether or not we're going to direct our PIO people to begin
working on a little campaign of some kind --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Education.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and then give me some guidance
as to how I can include the City of Naples in this process and under
what circumstances. In other words, how do they participate in this
and what do they share as far as costs are concerned. So you need to
give me a little guidance about how we proceed with that. Okay?
306
June 8, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Jim?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's not going to be a problem
because you already have representation from Naples through the
whole process. Bob Devlin.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Bob's good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, Bob's good and he's right
on top of the whole thing. You're right, people aren't going to show
up. And this is the sad part. We're talking about something that's not
only going to affect the cost of living but it's also going to affect the
safety of their future, how they plan for everything. And until there's
a crisis created like we had before with the dollar amounts hanging
over us, we removed the crisis temporarily and it's off in the future
now, now everybody is back relaxing and they shouldn't be--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They shouldn't be, that's right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They shouldn't be. And I don't
know how you motivate them. This has been one of the biggest
problems we've been up against and we have not found a solution.
How do you motivate people to respond? How do you get them to go
out and have surveys done out in the Estates now rather than wait till
the ball drops on December 1 st and there won't be enough surveyors
to go around? We don't have these answers. We tried everything we
could think of, community meetings. We keep harping on the same
thing and still people don't respond. We tell them, you know,
purchase flood insurance now while it's super cheap and if you can put
it on the expensive category you're grandfathered in. It's still not
happens (sic). It's like the hurricane, three days out and they start to
respond to something. Or if there's smoke in the air, they feel the heat
from fires, the forest fires, they start to do something about it. All we
can do is try. There's an obligation to try. And if we -- when it's all
done and said, we can always say, well, we've done everything
possible to reach out and touch you on these subjects, and, you know,
if you didn't respond, then this is the next alternative we have to go to.
307
June 8, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So what we're going to try and do is put
together an educational program, evaluate how best to reach our
citizens, plan some types of meetings in the fall and move forward
with that; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry Joe Schmitt isn't here
now, because he's the one that can address that best.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'll coordinate hopefully with
the City of Naples and get them involved in the process and get them
helping out, okay?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very, good. Very good.
Does that give you the direction you were looking for?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
Okay, now the kind of bad news. Marian Virginia Thompson is
your black affairs -- or was your black affairs advisory board chairman
from April 11 th, 2000 to the present. She passed away on June 2nd.
And I wanted to make sure that I advised you of that particular event.
It's with great sadness that we mark this passing. She was a great
advocate. She served the county well in her capacity. And I want to
make sure that her family knows that she's in our thoughts and
prayers, and we're basically giving our deepest sympathies.
Another sad note is Mr. Randy Garay, who was the senior
operator at the north water plant, passed away on Sunday of a massive
heart attack. And again, to Mrs. Garay and her family -- and her
daughter's coming in from Cleveland as they make arrangements,
funeral arrangements. But again, to the Garay family, our deepest
sympathies and our condolences. And again, Mr. Garay, Randy
Garay, is in our thoughts and prayers of all the employees of Collier
County, because one of us has just passed away.
And last but not least is an item that's on Commissioner Halas'
mind, how are we going to in Collier County mark the passing of
President Reagan on the 5th of June. I will tell that you there are --
and he's asked me this question, what are we going to do on Friday?
308
June 8, 2004
And I -- and my -- I have some reluctance to say the county's off,
county government is off, especially if the state government is still
working. I will tell you, the federal government in all capacities,
including the post office, is off on Friday to mark the national day of
mourning. I will also tell you that the state government is working.
And as far as we know as of today. I mean, the Governor is out of
town and I don't think anybody's really got to him to ask this specific
question.
I will also tell that you Lee County is off. They've made the
decision that it is a county government day of mourning also, and
they're basically closing the county offices.
May I make a recommendation to the board that if the state
government closes on Friday for -- to honor this national day of
mourning, that Collier County follow suit, and if and only when that
happens, and you can leave that decision up to the Chair or myself or
whichever way you'd like to have that happen. But that's my
recommendation that we stay open if the state's open and that we close
down if the state's going to close down. Because I will tell you F AC
is just going ballistic, you know. Everybody's calling, I guess it's
mother Florida Association of Counties, well, what are you doing,
what are you doing? And I will tell you that that domino will fall
based on the state decision.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If the state does not decide to close,
would our employees have the option of taking an in-service day off if
. they felt that they wanted a moment of mourning?
MR. MUDD: Are you telling me would they be able to take
either a personal day --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, either a personal day--
MR. MUDD: -- or a leave day?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Personal business day or a vacation
day.
309
June 8, 2004
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And I will tell you that from the
manager's office, I'll encourage a liberal leave policy for that
particular day if we're going to work.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we have that option, if the state
doesn't, we'll go option two, that's available to the employee.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I make a suggestion for your
consideration? I think one of the things that is probably more
important than an employee taking some time off on a particular day
of mourning is that there be some recognition of the great
contributions of President Reagan on that day. And I'm wondering if
perhaps an organized two minutes of silence in government at a
particular time of that day might be an appropriate kind of thing. I
happened to be in a Canadian border check point at the time that __
shortly after September -- the 9/11 attack in '01, and their government,
entire government stopped for two minutes for a moment of silence
and prayer, and they had television turned on in all of the government
offices and everything stopped for two minutes. And that was fairly
impressive. And I don't know, it seems to me that that kind of
recognition would be appreciated by President Reagan more so than
having an employee take time off from work. But I'm just throwing
that out for consideration. I don't know --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, how about the employees
that are working here, if we have 10:00, two minutes of silent prayer
at 10:00. And it's up to the option of any of the other employees if
they want to take a vacation day or a personal business day.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have an MPO meeting that day, don't
we?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, so we can stop it at--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And it starts at what, 9:00?
MS. FILSON: I believe. Is it 9:00 or 10:00?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is it 10:00?
310
,~,-- . -'~---'------'-'~~
June 8, 2004
MS. FILSON: Let me check.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How about those options? I think
we've got a couple of options on the table here. I think we ought to do
something because I think President Reagan --
MS. FILSON: It starts at 9:00.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- was a great president. Probably
he'll go down in history as one of the greatest presidents we ever had
CHAIRMAN FIALA: He sure will.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- so I think we ought to honor him.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, so we've got a few options here.
We'll wait to hear from you about the state.
MR. MUDD: Well, I'm asking the question because we need
some direction from the board in order to do that. If you're saying that
10:00 a.m. is just two minutes of silence and you're basically telling
me to establish a liberal leave policy for Friday, that's all doable, that's
within my authorities to do so. If you want the county government to
close down based on the state, then I need to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, if the state closes down, I
think we should, too.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I do, too.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I do, too. And if they don't, then I
think that we ought to bring up --
MR. MUDD: To do those first two items.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: If the state closes down, the state people
won't be here for the MPO item either, right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, exactly.
MR. MUDD: That's all I have, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Okay.
Commissioner Halas, anything more to say?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to say it was a long,
311
June 8, 2004
lengthy meeting, we covered an awful lot of area and a lot of subjects,
and I just want to say thanks very much for your effort as chair person.
You kept the meeting very well organized and thought we moved at a
pretty good rate of getting things accomplished in a timely manner.
Thank you very much for your leadership.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you so much.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I feel the same way. You
did an excellent job today. And I just want to say Commissioner
Coyle was very well behaved. You had extremely, very good control
over him.
One thing, if we do have to close down on Friday, I'm going to
volunteer to run the switchboard down there. I'd like to experience
trying that. Set everyone straight when they call up.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Boy, are we in trouble.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would like to offer my sincerest
apologies to Commissioner Coletta today. He didn't get to talk as long
as he normally does because I took up a major portion of his time, and
that I'm very, very sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Apology accepted.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I'll wind up with number one, it's
8: 14 and I bet Commissioner Henning is already in Michigan and
we're still here from when he left.
I want to say thank you to Cheryl Coyle for sitting here and
having all this patience and all this endurance with us to stay with us
all day long. I'm delighted my sister's going to come visit me on
Friday, and I hope your dad --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Father-in-law.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Your father-in-law's health improves.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And our prayers are with
Commissioner Henning and his family.
312
June 8, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And his mother, yes. And with that, the
meeting is adjourned.
*****Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner
Coyle and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 2004-184: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PUBLIC AND PRIVATE), DRAINAGE, WATER
AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF
"TARPON BAY" PORTIONS OF THE ROADWAY AND
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIV ATEL Y
MAINTAINED AND CERTAIN PORTIONS WILL BE
MAINTAINED BY COLLIER COUNTY, AND THE WATER AND
SEWER IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE MAINTAINED BY
COLLIER COUNTY- WITH RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE
SECI.IR.ITY
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 2004-185: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE), DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "CAPISTRANO
AT GREY OAKS" THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED, THE
WATER IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE MAINTAINED BY THE
CITY OF NAPLES, AND THE SANITARY SEWAGE
COLLECTION WILL BE MAINTAINED BY COLLIER
COUNTY- WITH RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE
313
June 8, 2004
SECllRITY
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 2004-186: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE), DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "SANTA ROSA
AT OLDE CYPRESS" THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED, THE
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
MAINTAINED BY COLLIER COUNTY- WITH RELEASE OF
Item #16A4
ACCEPTANCE OF A CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND
ESCROW AGREEMENT FOR A LAKE EXCAVATION AT
TUSCANY COVE AND APPROVAL OF $552,498.38 AS
PERFORMANCE SECURITY FOR THE REQUIRED
I.MEROVEMENTS
Item #16A5
ACCEPTANCE OF THE 2003 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY- AS
Item #16A6
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING THE FISCAL YEAR
2005 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT (HUD) PROGRAM ALLOCATIONS AND
314
June 8, 2004
BllIlGETS
Item #16A7
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING THE FISCAL YEAR
2005 STATE HOUSING INITIATIVE PARTNERSHIP (SHIP)
Item #16A8
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
BERKSHIRE LANDINGS- WITH THE RELEASE OF THE
Item #16A9
APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE JOB CREATION
INVESTMENT PROGRAM AND THE FEE PAYMENT
Item #16Bl
APPROVAL OF THE PIGGYBACKING OF THE CITY OF WEST
PALM BEACH CONTRACT TO PURCHASE A LAID IN PLACE
POL YMER MODIFIED COLD MIX PAVING SYSTEM (MICRO-
SURFACING) FOR THE ROAD MAINTENANCE
Item #16B2 - WITHDRAWN
PROHIBITING THE OPERATION OF TRUCKS AND OTHER
COMMERCIAL VEHICLES HAVING A RATED LOAD-
315
June 8, 2004
CARRYING CAPACITY IN EXCESS OF ONE (1) TON FROM
Item #16B3
RESOLUTION 2004-187 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF
A PRE-QUALIFIED JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
(JPA) WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
Item #16B4
AN AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA COMMISSION FOR
THE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED (CTD) AS
REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSPORTATION
Item #16B5
RESOLUTION 2004-188 ENDORSING THE 2004 MEMBERSHIP
APPORTIONMENT PLAN OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION THEREBY
ADDING A MEMBER OF THE EVERGLADE CITY COUNCIL
Item #16B6
A GRANT OF UTILITY EASEMENT FROM COLLIER COUNTY
TO FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY REQUIRED FOR
THE PURPOSE OF RELOCATING ELECTRICAL SERVICE AT
COLLIER COUNTY EMS STATION NO. 12 (NEAR THE
316
June 8, 2004
COLLIER COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS) AS PART OF THE
Item #16B7
APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT WITH FLT/LEICA
GEOSYSTEMS FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF
A COUNTYWIDE REAL TIME KINEMATIC (RTK) GLOBAL
POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS) NETWORK IN THE AMOUNT
Item #16B8
ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT FUNDS FROM THE SOUTH
FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR A REAL
TIME KINEMATIC (RTK) GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM
Item #16B9
ADOPT-A-ROAD PROGRAM AGREEMENT (S) WITH THE
FOLLOWING PARTICIPANTS: THE ISLAND WALK
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, VIP REALTY (RICH CONTE),
PALMETTO RIDGE HIGH SCHOOL MARCHING BAND,
SOROPTIMIST CLUB OF NAPLES, BOARDROOM SURF SHOP,
JUBILEE F AMIL Y CHIROPRACTIC, NEAPOLITAN CIVIT AN
CLUB, INGLESIA PENTECOSTAL PENIEL, AND FREEDOM
TRIANGLE ASSOCIATION- AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16B 10
317
June 8, 2004
RESOLUTION 2004-189 THORIZING A SPEED LIMIT
REDUCTION FROM FORTY-FIVE MILES PER HOUR (45 MPH)
TO THIRTY-FIVE MILES PER HOUR (35 MPH) ON
NORTHBROOKE DRIVE FROM NORTHBROOKE PLAZA
DRIVE TO 200 FEET NORTH OF MILL CREEK LANE FOR A
illS.IANCROF 0.2 MILRS
Item #16B11
WORK ORDER NO. BOC-FT-04-10 WITH BONNESS, INC. IN
THE AMOUNT OF $110,326.93 FOR INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS ON GOLDENGATE PARKWAY AT COLLIER
Item #16B12
RESOLUTION 2004-190: AUTHORIZING THE DESIGNATION
OF $120,000 OF COLLIER COUNTY'S FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION (FTA) SECTION 5307 FORMULA FUNDS
FOR THE BONITA SPRINGS AREA TO THE LEE COUNTY
Item #16B13
APPROVAL OF WORK ORDER NO. APC-FT-04-01 WITH
AP AC-SOUTHEAST FOR MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $149,538.67 ON RADIO ROAD AT THE SAN
Item #16B 14
RESOLUTION 2004-191 AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT
318
June 8, 2004
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND
OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND A SIDEWALK
CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND WCI COMMUNITIES, INC. FOR THE
INST ALLA TION OF A SIDEWALK ALONG TOWER ROAD
FROM BAREFOOT WILLIAMS ROAD TO COLLIER
BOULEVARD, REQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF
MAINTAINING THE SIDEWALK AS A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-
WAY, tlO.IEC.I.No nO L1J
Item #16B15
A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF
ENTRY FROM PHILIP A. AND ANNA MARIA MARRONE FOR
THE PURPOSE OF ACCESSING A PROPERTY FOR STAGING
AND MAINTENANCE DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
Item #16B16
REJECTION OF BID #04-3654, LIVINGSTON ROAD (PINE
RIDGE ROAD TO IMMOKALEE ROAD) MEDIAN LANDSCAPE
IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECT- AS DETAILED
Item #16B17
APPROVAL OF CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 01-3216-A-02
(CONTRACT NO. 01-3216), WITH WOODS HOLE GROUP FOR
THE HALDEMAN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (PROJECT
NO. 51011) IN THE AMOUNT OF $183,820- AS DETAILED IN
319
June 8, 2004
Item #16B18 - MOVED TO ITEM #10E
Item #16B19
RESOLUTION 2004-192: EXECUTING A LOCAL AGENCY
PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT), WHICH IMPLEMENTS UP TO
$250,000 IN HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE ENHANCEMENTS
OF THE COUNTYWIDE ADVANCED TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BY COLLIER COUNTY, WITH
REIMBURSEMENT BY FDOT-AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16B20
AWARD BID #04-3651, LIVINGSTON ROAD (RADIO ROAD-
PINE RIDGE) MEDIAN LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENT
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT TO HANNULA LANDSCAPING,
Item #16B21
AWARD BID #04-3659-"READY MIX CONCRETE" IN THE
ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $20,000 TO SCHWAB
READY MIX, INC. AS THE PRIMARY VENDOR AND
QUALITY ENTERPRISES USA, INC. AS THE SECONDARY
YENIlOR
Item #16C1
320
June 8, 2004
RESOLUTION 2004-193: APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF
LIEN FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS
WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND
SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1993 SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
A SSE.S.SMENTs
Item #16C2
RESOLUTION 2004-194: APPROVING THE SATISFACTIONS
OF LIEN FOR THE SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS
WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENTS AND
SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1994 SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
A SSES.S.MENTs
Item #16C3
RESOLUTION 2004-195: APPROVING THE SATISFACTIONS
OF LIEN FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS
WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND
SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1995 SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASS E.S.SMENTs
Item #16C4
RESOLUTION 2004-196: APPROVING THE SATISFACTIONS
OF LIEN FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS
WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND
SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1996 SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
321
June 8, 2004
ASSESSMENTs
Item # 16C5
SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF CLAIM OF LIEN FOR
Item #16C6
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN DOCUMENTS FILED AGAINST
Item #16C7
APPROVE WORK ORDER UC-009 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$355,000 WITH MITCHELL & STARK CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, FOR THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER
TREATMENT PLANT DEGASIFIER BLOWER ENCLOSURES
NOISE ABATEMENT PROJECT CONTRACT #04-3535, PROJECT
NO 7QOó1
Item #16C8
APPROVE WORK ORDER UC-013 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$729,000 FOR PUMP STATION 107 IMPROVEMENTS TO
DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS, INC., UNDER CONTRACT #04-3535-
ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITY
Item #16C9
APPROVE COMMITTEE SELECTION OF FIRMS FOR
322
June 8, 2004
"INVITATION TO QUALIFY" ITQ #04-3648 FOR DREDGING
CONTRACTORS TO INCLUDE BEAN STUYVESANT, LLC.,
GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK COMPANY, INC., AND
WEEKS MARINE, INC. TO COMPETE FOR THE COLLIER
COUNTY & CITY OF NAPLES MAJOR BEACH
Item #16C10
A WARD OF BID #04-3664 IN THE AMOUNT OF $822,998 FOR
PUMP STATION 103 IMPROVEMENTS TO DOUGLAS N.
Item #16C11
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $35,000, AND A
WORK ORDER, UNDER CONTRACT #01-3271, FIXED TERM
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR COASTAL
ZONE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS, WITH HUMISTON &
MOORE ENGINEERS FOR HIDEA WAY BEACH
RENOURISHMENT PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS,
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE, AND BID DOCUMENT
PREPARATION, PROJECT NO. 90502, IN THE AMOUNT OF
Item #16C12
BUDGET AMENDMENTS RECOGNIZING POSITIVE CARRY
FORWARD VARIANCE IN THE WATER POLLUTION
Item #16C13
323
June 8, 2004
AMENDMENT NO.3 FOR CONTRACT #GC526 WITH THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
TO PERFORM PETROLEUM STORAGE FACILITY
Item #16C14
AWARD RFQ #04-0334 UNDER CONTRACT #03-3349, TO
SURETY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR THE PUBLIC
UTILITIES DIVISION BUILDING H RENOVATIONS IN THE
AMOl.INI...OE$J 99,:'):') 7
Item #16D 1
APPROVE OPERATING EXPENDITURES IN AN AMOUNT NOT
TO EXCEED $10,000 AND STAFF SUPPORT FOR THE
COORDINATION OF ACTIVITIES AND PROMOTION
Item #16D2 - MOVED TO ITEM #10F
Item #16E1
A WARD BID #04-3630 IN THE AMOUNT OF $330,427 "F AÇADE
RENOVATIONS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COURTHOUSE"
Item #16E2
REJECT ALL BIDS RECEIVED UNDER BID 804-3620, SALE OF
324
June 8, 2004
Item # 16E3
REPORT AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS
AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD- APPROVED
CONTRACTS FOR THE PERIOD OF APRIL 28, 2004 THROUGH
MAY21,2004
Item #16E4
EXTENSION OF CONTRACT #99-2920 "DOCUMENT IMAGING
AND STORAGE SYSTEM" WITH IMAGE-ONE, INC. UNTIL
.DECEM13ERJ 2, 2004
Item #16E5
AUTHORIZE THE SALE OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EQUIPMENT TO IMAGE-ONE, INC.
Item #16F1
ENTER INTO CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH PUBLIC
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, INC. (PFM) TO SERVE AS
Item #16F2 - MOVED TO ITEM #10G
Item #16F3
AGREEMENT WITH PLATINUM TELEVISION GROUP, INC.,
AND AN EXPENDITURE OF $28,700 FOR A CNN HEADLINE
NEWS SEGMENT ENTITLED "PULSE ON AMERICA" AS A
325
June 8, 2004
WAY TO PROMOTE COLLIER COUNTY AS A MEETING
DESTINATION- AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SIlMMARv
Item #16F4
A TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY "A" GRANT
APPLICATION AND A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE
VANDERBILT BEACH EASEMENT ACCESS FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2004 IN THE AMOUNT OF $148,500- AS DETAILED IN
Item #16H1
REQUEST PAYMENT FOR COMMISSIONER COLETTA TO
ATTEND THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA TRANSPORTATION
INITIATIVE POST-SESSION LEGISLATIVE FORUM ON JUNE 2,
2004 AT THE SHADOW WOOD COUNTRY CLUB AT A COST
OF $35.00 TO BE PAID FROM THE COMMISSIONER'S TRAVEL
BlIDGET
Item #16I1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE-FILED AND/OR
REEERRED-
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
326
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
June 8, 2004
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Minutes:
1. Collier County Productivity Committee - Minutes of April 21, 2004.
H : Data/F ormat
June 8, 2004
Item #16Jl
DESIGNATING THE SHERIFF AS THE OFFICIAL APPLICANT
AND PROGRAM POINT-OF-CONTACT FOR THE UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF JUSTICE
ASSISTANCE, LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROGRAM, ACCEPT THE GRANT WHEN A WARDED AND
Item # 16J2
DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE PURCHASE OF GOODS
AND SERVICES DOCUMENTED IN THE DETAILED REPORT
OF OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS SERVE A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE AND AUTHORIZED THE EXPENDITURE OF
COUNTY FUNDS TO SATISFY SAID PURCHASES FROM MAY
J5, 2~AY2R, 20(14
Item #16Kl
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OF HEALTH CARE REIT, INC. V.
COLLIER COUNTY- CASE NO. 02-5002-CA & COLLIER
COUNTY V. CERTAIN LANDS UPON WHICH IMPACT FEES
ARE DELINQUENT-CASE NO. 03-231-CA, NOW PENDING IN
THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT FOR NAPLES,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA- AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16K2
AGREED ORDER AND AUTHORIZED PAYMENT OF
PLANNING FEES FOR PARCEL 123 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
327
June 8, 2004
COLLIER COUNTY V ANTHONY F. JANCIGAR, TRUSTEE, ET.
AL., CASE NO. 00-0142-CA (PINE RIDGE ROAD PROJECT
#60111)- $8896.15 TO THE CARDILLO KEITH AND
B.ON A QI.1ISL.IRusy A CCOI.lNT
Item #16K3
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENTS, RUFUS F. DUFF
AND CAROLYN H. DUFF, FOR PARCEL NO. 130 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $16,300 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL & RESCUE
DISTRICT, ET AL., CASE NO. 02-1702-CA (GOODLETTE ROAD
EROlECT ()O 134)
Item #16K4
ORDER AWARDING COSTS AS TO PARCEL 167A IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V ANDY R. MORGAN,
ET. AL., CASE NO. 02-5169-CA, IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT
60018- $6,512.42 TO THE ROETZEL & ANDRESS TRUST
ACCOI.1NT
Item #16K5
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE FEE
SIMPLE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 147 IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V ZIAD SHAHLA, ET. AL., CASE
Item #16K6
RESOLUTION 2004-197: AUTHORIZING THE HOUSING
328
June 8, 2004
FINANCE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING
REVENUE BONDS TO BE USED TO FINANCE SUMMER
Item # 1 7 A
ORDINANCE 2004-36: PETITION PUDZ-03-AR-4395,
HAMILTON HARBOR, INC., REPRESENTED BY ANITA
JENKINS OF WILSONMILLER, INC., AND GEORGE
VARNADOE, OF CHEFFY, P ASSIDOMO, WILSON AND
JOHNSON, P.A., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) TO A PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD) KNOWN AS THE HAMIL TON HARBOR
PUD FOR THE PURPOSE OF REDUCING THE NUMBER OF
DRY STORAGE SLIPS FROM 450 TO 325 AND REDUCING THE
NUMBER OF SEATS IN THE RESTAURANT FROM 150 TO 100
IN ORDER TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTER-LOCAL
GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
NAPLES AND COLLIER COUNTY THAT WAS APPROVED ON
MAY 27,2003. APPROXIMATELY 154 ACRES OF THIS
PROJECT ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF NAPLES AND
IS ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) WHILE
APPROXIMATELY 21 ACRES ARE WITHIN COLLIER COUNTY
AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BAY STREET, AND
APPROXIMATEL Y ONE-HALF MILE OF THOMASSON DRIVE
IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,
329
June 8, 2004
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 8:15 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
fjJ~ )~
DONN FIALA, Chairman
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E·,,,BJ,lOCK, CLERK
{;~('f\,í.i2' tG..:.'ñ", "i~,.
.' .,,~. ..,....-<,~ ".
. .:~. ".' . " '. .':.1 ~;:"""
6ß:~...~o.('
$1gw.~.. OIIJJ.:"·.'
, 11<'('J" l' t .':r/5;t.'
These minutes approved by the Board on 1- d 1-- dDoi ' as
presented / or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY TERRI LEWIS AND CHERIE
NOTTINGHAM
330
--.--