BCC Minutes 07/27/2004 R
July 27, 2004
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, July 27, 2004
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and
also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the
governing board( s) of such special district as has been
created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR
SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East
Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Donna Fiala
Frank Halas
Tom Henning
Jim Coletta
ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Jim Mitchell, Office of the Clerk of Courts
1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
~
1IIÌ:,
AGENDA
July 27,2004
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 PRESENTATION OF
THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED REQUIRES
THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING
ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK
TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS
DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT
ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH
EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR
TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC
PETITIONS."
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
1
July 27, 2004
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5)
MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Pastor Craig Canfield, Eagle's Nest Worship Center
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. June 8, 2004 - BCC/Regular Meeting
C. June 22, 2004 - BCC/Regular Meeting
D. June 29, 2004 - BCC/Special Meeting
E. June 29,2004 - BCC/Budget Hearing
F. June 30, 2004 - BCC/Budget Hearing
3. SERVICE AWARDS
4. PROCLAMATIONS
2
July 27,2004
A. Proclamation to recognize August 3rd, 2004 as National Night Out In
Collier County. To be accepted by Corporal Ray Erickson, Crime
Prevention Unit of Collier County.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation by the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary to the Collier
County Emergency Department and Collier County Citizen Corps for the
tremendous assistance in helping volunteer organizations promote the
goals and missions of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary throughout
Collier County. To be accepted by Jim V onRinteln, Collier County
Emergency Management.
B. Award to Sharon Downey, RSVP Project Director, for the Helen K.
Fallert A ward for Exemplary services to the elderly in Southwest
Florida. Presented by Leigh Wade, Executive Director, Senior
Solutions, Inc.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition Request by Patrick J. Lee to discuss air show to be held
at the Immokalee Airport in 2005.
B. Public Petition Request by Del Ackerman to discuss painting standards
relating to Del's 24-Hour Store on Bayshore Road.
C. Public Petition Request by Herman Haeger to discuss operational costs
imposed by Collier County Code Enforcement Board.
D. Public Petition Request by David E. Bryant to discuss Lely Community
Development District/Security Resolution.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE
SWORN IN AND EX PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY
COMMISSION MEMBERS. V A-2004-AR-5798, Richard Rundle,
representing Jim and Connie Adams, requesting two variances from
PUD Ordinance 82-80, Imperial West PUD for a proposed single-family
residential structure: a 1.8 foot variance from the required 20 feet
3
July 27, 2004
separation between principle structures or one half (1 /2) the sum of the
heights of the adjacent structures, which ever is greater, to 18.2 feet on
the east side of Lot 46 Park Place West and a four foot variance from the
required 20 foot separation to 16 feet on the west side of Lot 46. The
property to be considered for the Variance is located at 1155 Imperial
Drive, further described as the Lot 46, Park Place West, in Section 15,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This is a companion item to 10J. This item is continued from June 22,
2004. Public Hearing to consider adoption of an Ordinance establishing
The Quarry Community Development District (CDD) pursuant to section
190.005, Florida Statutes (F.S.).
B. This item to he heard at 3:00 p.m. This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Recommend that the Collier County Board of
County Commissioners (BCC) approve a resolution adopting the seven
year Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) of the Collier County
Growth Management Plan for transmittal to the Department of
Community Affairs (DCA) for sufficiency review according to the
procedures and criteria outlined in Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes,
Evaluation and Appraisal of Comprehensive Plan.
C. Petitioner has requested that this item he continued indefinitely. This
item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by Commission members. Petition PUDZ-2003-AR-4250: Golden
Gate Fire Control and Rescue District and Waterways Joint Venture IV,
represented by Karen Bishop, ofPMS, Inc. of Naples, and Richard D.
Y ovanovich, of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, P.A., requesting a rezone
from the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Mixed Planned Unit
Development (MPUD) zoning district, to allow development of a fire station
with a 135-foot high communication tower and a 75-foot high training
facility, and sixteen (16) single-family attached dwellings (including
townhouses intended for fee simple conveyance including the platted lot
associated with the residence) and customary accessory uses. Property is
located on the west side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), approximately 340
feet north of Wolfe Road, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida, consisting of 9.3 8± acres.
4
July 27, 2004
D. Recommendation for the adoption of a Resolution applying the Annual
Mid-Cycle Indexing adjustments to amend the Parks and Recreational
Facilities Impact Fee rate schedule, which is Schedule Three of
Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances (Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance No.
2001-13, as amended); providing for an effective date of August 2,2004
E. Documents for this item are available for review in the Zoning and Land
Review Department (see Russell Webb). Recommendation to approve an
ordinance amending the County's recently recodified Land Development
Code (LDC aka UDC) to correct scrivener's errors prior to final publication
and to amend existing and still effective LDC provisions pertaining to
political signs and charitable solicitations in road rights-of-way.
F. Documents for this item are available for review in the Zoning and Land
Review Department (see Russell Webb). Recommendation to approve an
ordinance amending the County's Code of Laws and Ordinances (Code or
Code of Laws) to relocate existing Land Development Code (LDC)
provisions into the Code of Laws, to amend existing Code of Laws
Provisions pertaining to the SHIP Program, and to delete duplicative code
provisions no longer required.
G. Petitioner has requested that this item he continued indefinitely.
Petition SNR-2003-AR-4982, Bill L. Neal, representing Bayshore
Beautification Municipal Special Taxing Unit, requesting a street name
change from Bayshore Drive to Botanical Garden Parkway, located in
Sections 11, 14, 23 & 26, Township 50 South, Range 25 East.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Discussion regarding Status Report from the Collier County Citizens
Corps. (Commissioner Coletta request)
B. Appointment of members to the Community Character/Smart Growth
Advisory Committee.
C. Discussion regarding land development restrictions in Plantation Island.
(Commissioner Coletta's request.)
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
5
July 27, 2004
A. Recommendation that the Board adopt the proposed FY 2005 Millage Rates
B. It is recommended this item he continued to the Septemher 14,2004
BCC Meeting. Recommendation to review a proposal from Southwest
Heritage Inc., to lease the Naples Depot as a branch facility of the Collier
County Museum. (Marla Ramsey, Interim Administrator, Public Services)
C. That the BCC approve the MPO's FY 2004/05 operating budget in the
amount of$701,230 and all associated future budget amendments to a
maximum amount of $1 ,324,934. (Norman Feder, Administrator,
Transportation Services)
D. Recommendation to consider a request from the developer of Ave Maria
University to expand the limits of the County's FEMA-related Base Flood
Elevation study, being done by Tomasello Consulting Engineers, to include
the Fakahatchee Strand Drainage Basin, which is where the AVE MARIA
Stewardship Community District is situated. (Joe Schmitt, Administrator,
Community Development)
E. Recommendation to approve the Agreement for Haldeman Creek
Disposal with Lakeview Drive of Naples, LCC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company. (Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator)
F. This is a companion item to Item lOG. This item to he heard at 1:00
p.m. Recommendation to award a construction contract in the amount of
$32,999,885 to Magnum Construction Management Corp. d/b/a MCM Corp.
and reserve $2,397,500 in funding allowances to construct 6-lane road
improvements and a grade separated overpass on Golden Gate Parkway
generally between Airport-Pulling Road and Livingston Road, Project No.
60006, Bid No. 04-3653, Fiscal Impact $35,397,385. (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation Services)
G. This item to he heard immediately following Item 10F.
Recommendation to Approve Selection of Qualified Firm and Award a
Contract Under ITQ 04-3583 "CEI Services for Collier County Road
Projects" for Project No. 60006 "Golden Gate Parkway Grade Separated
Overpass and Appurtenances, Bear's Paw to Livingston Road" in the
amount of $2,367,811.00 (Norman Feder, Transportation Division,
Administrator)
6
July 27,2004
H. This is a companion item to Item 101. Recommendation to award a
construction contract in the amount of$35,379,910.53 to APAC-Southeast,
Inc. and reserve $2,225,000 in funding allowances to construct road and
utility improvements on Vanderbilt Beach Road, from Airport-Pulling Road
to just east of Collier Boulevard; Project No. 63051; Bid No. 04-3675;
Fiscal Impact $37,604,910.53 (Norman Feder, Administrator,
Transportation Services)
I. This item to he heard immediately following Item 10H.
Recommendation to Approve Selection of Qualified Firm and Award a
Contract Under ITQ 04-3583 "CEI Services for Collier County Road
Projects" for Project No. 63051 "Vanderbilt Beach Road Six-Laning
Project from Airport Road to Collier Boulevard" in the amount of
$2,074,542.00.
J. This is a companion item to 8A. Recommendation to obtain Board
approval of a Developer Contribution Agreement between Bayvest, LLC,
and Centex Homes (collectively the "Developer"), and the County, with
respect to the Heritage Bay Development. THE Agreement: (1)
implements certain impact fee credits set forth in a PUD Document and
DRI Development Order, which were respectively approved by the
County on July 29, 2003, INCLUDING REQUIRING the Developer to
pay to the County within 45 days of the date of the Agreement the first
$5,000,000.00 of the Heritage Bay road impact fees; (2) supplements the
PUD, in that with respect to the southern boundary of the property
adjacent to Immokalee Road, and 1.5 MILES OF the western boundary of
the property adjacent to the Collier Boulevard planned extension, instead
of separate sidewalks and bike lanes as required by Section 3.2.8.3.17 of
the LDC, Developer shall construct a ten-foot asphalt greenway type path,
OR MAKE PAYMENT TO THE COUNTY IN LIEU OF SUCH
CONSTRUCTION; AND (4) further memorializes a number of Developer
commitments previously made in the PUD. (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation Services)
K. Recommendation to approve Professional Services Agreement No.04-
3553 in the amount of $2,264,000 with CH2MHILL, Inc., for the
design of Collier Boulevard improvements from US41 to Davis
Boulevard, Project No. 60001.
L. Recommendation to award "Annual Contract for Manhole and Lift
7
July 27,2004
Station Rehabilitation Contracting Services" to selected firms, Bid 04-
3660, Project 73051 for $2,588,397.00.
M. Recommendation to award to Diversified Drilling Corporation, Bid No.
04-3663, North County Regional Water Treatment Plant Water Supply
Wells - Well Drilling Services up to an amount not to exceed
$3,207,613; Projects 710061 and 710111.
N. Recommendation to approve the award of Bid #04-3670 in the amount
of$3,275,650 for a Construction Contract with DeAngelis Diamond
Construction, Inc. for the construction of the North Naples Government
Services Center and to approve a Budget Amendment for $746,274.
O. Request for the Board of County Commissioners to terminate a contract
for the construction of the South County Regional Water Treatment Plant
(Contract 01-3194). (Item 12B to be heard immediately following this
item. )
P. Recommendation to Waive Formal Competition and Award a Contract
to Wharton-Smith Inc. Construction Group to Complete the Construction
of the 8 MGD RO Expansion at the South County Regional Water
Treatment Plant for an Interim Amount not to exceed $3,000,000.
Q. Recommendation to deny the request by Waterways Joint Venture IV for
a refund of Transportation Impact Fees totaling $217,830 for the Summit
Place project. (Joe Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. Direct desired action by the Office of County Attorney in two code
enforcement lien foreclosure actions entitled Collier County v.
Anthony J. Varano, Jr., Case Nos. 99-4226-CA and 00-3430-CA.
B. Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners as the Ex-
Officio Governing Body of the Collier County Water-Sewer District to
Authorize and Ratify a Lawsuit Against United Engineering
Corporation and United Engineering Corporation's Surety, National
Union Fire Insurance Co., for Liquidated Damages and Consequential
8
July 27, 2004
Damages Arising from Material Breaches by United Engineering
Corporation in Performing the Contract for the South County Regional
Water Treatment Plant 8-MGD RO Expansion (Contract/Bid No. 01-
3194). (Item lOP to be heard immediately following this item.)
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AREA
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will be
removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase of
1.14 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program,
at a cost not to exceed $11 ,600(A vatar Properties, Inc).
2) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase of
1.14 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program,
at a cost not to exceed $11,600 (Stewart).
3) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase of
2.73 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program,
at a cost not to exceed $31,100 (Zak).
4) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase of
3.79 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program,
at a cost not to exceed $39,200 (Beardsley).
5) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase of
1.14 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program,
at a cost not to exceed $11,600 (Beardsley, Trustee).
9
July 27,2004
6) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase of
1.14 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program,
at a cost not to exceed $11,600 (Cassidy).
7) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase of
1.59 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program,
at a cost not to exceed $16,000 (Hamilton).
8) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase of
2.27 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program,
at a cost not to exceed $26,100 (Hanson).
9) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase of
1.14 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program,
at a cost not to exceed $11 ,600 (McBride).
10) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Milano",
and approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
11) Recommendation to approve payment to attend function serving a
valid public purpose.
12) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private),
drainage, water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Camelot
Park". The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately
maintained, the water and sewer improvements will be maintained by
Collier County
13) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private),
drainage, water and sewer improvements for the final plat of
"Lalique". The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately
maintained, the water and sewer improvements will be maintained by
Collier County.
14) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private),
drainage, water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Villa
FIorenza". The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately
maintained, the water and sewer improvements will be maintained by
10
July 27,2004
--.-
Collier County
15) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Cayo
Costa, Unit Two", approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security
16) Recommendation to approve a mortgage and promissory note for a
two hundred twenty-eight thousand ($228,000) dollar loan to the
Collier County Housing Authority.
17) Recommendation to approve the proposed amendment to the current
interlocal agreement between Collier County and the Economic
Development Council of Collier County and the related budget
amendment that transfers the previously approved funds.
18) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Milagro
Place"
19) Recommendation to approve the request to have the Collier County
Board of County Commissioners authorize an amendment to
resolution 2004-97 which established a fee schedule of development
related review and processing fees as provided for in division 1.10 of
the Collier County Land Development Code.
20) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private),
drainage, water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Glen
Lake Estates". The roadway and drainage improvements will be
privately maintained, the water and sewer improvements will be
maintained by Collier County
21) Recommendation to approve the Satisfaction of Liens for Code
Enforcement Board Case No. 2000031, 2001-005, 2000-049, 2003-
028, 2000-024 and 2001-083.
22) Recommendation to approve one (1) impact fee reimbursement
requested by Goodlette Road Limited Partnership, totaling
$415,326.10, due to building permit cancellation
23) Recommendation to approve one (1) impact fee reimbursement,
11
July 27, 2004
requested by Vineyards Development Corporation, totaling
$1,264,080, due to an overpayment of Water and Sewer Impact Fees
on Building Permit No. 2004-050308
24) Recommendation to approve Satisfaction of Lien for Code
Enforcement Board Case No: 2003-041
25) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Pine Air
Lakes Unit Five", approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security
26) Approval of Contract 04-3682, in the amount of $69,330, with
Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Incorporated for consultant services
for a Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to award Bid No. 04-3603R - "Purchase of Lime-
Rock and Fill Material" to Aggrisource, Youngquist, Florida Rock,
Southern Sand and Stone, Inc. for the estimated annual amount of
$500,000
2) Recommendation to approve the establishment of a Neighborhood
Traffic Management Program (NTMP), Traffic Calming Project, to
address a Lely Civic Association, Inc. generated request via the
adoption of Traffic Management Petition Number NTMP-04-0 1, for
installation of traffic calming devices on Forest Hills Boulevard and
Pebble Beach Boulevard.
3) Recommendation to approve fiscal year 2004 reserve funds to be used
to advance fiscal year 2005 landscaping funds into fiscal year 2004
with reinstatement of the reserve funds in fiscal year 2005 from the
landscaping budget in the amount of$274,059.
4) Recommendation to approve a Developer Contribution Agreement
between FFT Santa Barbara I, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, and Gertrude Abele, Trustee, hereinafter collectively
referred to as "Developer," and the County.
12
July 27, 2004
5) Recommendation to endorse proposed roadway functional
classification designations for Immokalee and Marco Island "Urban
Cluster" Areas of Collier County
6) Recommendation to Award Bid #04-3674 "Airport-Pulling Road
MSTD Roadway Grounds Maintenance" at a yearly cost of
$123,875.00
7) Recommendation to approve a landscape installation and maintenance
agreement between Longshore Lake Foundation, Inc and Collier
County for landscaping and wall installation within the right-of-way
on Logan Boulevard at no cost to the County.
8) Recommendation to approve exemptions and variances to the Land
Development Code (sidewalks).
9) Recommendation to the Board to approve, sign and execute an
Agreement between Collier County and the Commission for the
Transportation Disadvantaged for funds in the amount of$428,549.20
for the provision of transportation for qualified Medicaid recipients
10) Recommendation to approve a donation from the Lely Golf Estates
Civic Association to the Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU in
the amount of$7395.12 for 50% of the refurbishment cost of the
MSTU's entrance monuments
11) Recommendation to approve the Transportation Division to provide a
one time grading and lime rock for South 8th Street & Doak Avenue
in Immokalee thereby making the roads passable for emergency
vehicles such as police, fire and EMS.
12) Recommend Board's approval of Adopt-A-Road Agreements (6) for
the following: Buzz Hill State Farm, Dance Universe-Miss S.W.
Florida USA, Lori Young-South Bay Realty and Swiss Team
Enterprises, Inc.
13) Recommendation to approve Change Order No.1 to Douglas N.
Higgins, Inc. for the Palm Street Outfall Project (Project No. 51804)
in the amount of$71,402.50.
13
July 27, 2004
14) Recommendation for Board to accept grant funds from South Florida
Water Management District for the Haldeman Creek Dredging Project
in the amount of $500,000, Project Number 51011.
15) Recommendation that the Board approve a Budget Amendment
recognizing revenue received from the Florida Department of
Transportation under an annual maintenance agreement for traffic
signals and streetlights.
16) Recommendation to award a contract in the amount of $297,250 to
Aquagenix for the 2004 Australian Pine Removal Project (Project No.
51501), and approve a budget amendment to transfer funds in the
amount of$148,250.
17) Recommendation that the Board authorize a speed limit change from
fifty-five miles per hour (55 MPH) to forty-five miles per hour (45
MPH) on Oil Well Road from Corkscrew Middle School to 2600 feet
east of Everglades Boulevard, for a distance of approximately three
(3) miles, at an approximate cost of$600.00.
18) Recommendation to approve a landscape installation and maintenance
agreement between Naples Botanical Garden, Inc. and Collier County
for landscaping and irrigation installation within the right-of-way on
Thomasson Road at no cost to the County.
19) Recommendation to Approve Contract for RFP #04-3571, "Green
Boulevard Extension Corridor Study," (Project Number 62024) in the
Total Amount of$277,058
20) Recommendation that the Board approve a contract between
ConsulTech, Inc. and Collier County for System Manager
Engineering Services related to Construction Inspection and
Implementation Oversight for the construction and implementation of
the Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) Phase II project,
with costs to the County reimbursed by the Florida Department of
Transportation.
21) Recommendation to the Board to approve a rate increase for the
Transportation Disadvantaged Program
14
July 27,2004
22) Recommendation that the Board approve a contract with Young's
Communications Co., Inc., and Kent Technologies, Inc. for Conduit
and Pull Box installation related to communications cable for the
Advanced Traffic Management System (A TMS) Phase II project, with
costs to the County reimbursed by the Florida Department of
Transportation.
23) Recommendation to Approve Contracts for RFP 04-3645 "Real Estate
Appraisal Services"
24) Recommendation to authorize repairs to a surface water pumping
station in the East Naples area not to exceed $20,000.00 and to accept
an agreement between Collier County and Lely Civic Association,
Inc. & Lely Country Club P.O.A. for perpetual operation and
maintenance responsibilities of said pump to Lely Civic Association,
Inc. & Lely Country Club P.O.A.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to award Bid Number 04-3624 to AAA Generator
& Pump Inc. for the purchase of generators by the Water Department
in the estimated amount of$110,682.00.
2) Recommendation to award Bid Number 04-3626 to E.A. Waetjen,
Incorporated for the purchase of a lock and access system for use by
the Water Department in the estimated amount of$125,000.
3) Recommendation to approve Budget Amendment in the amount of
$720,000 to fund operating expenses for electricity and chemicals at
the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant.
4) Recommendation to approve and authorize execution of two Utility
Easements and various other transaction documents relative to the
Golden Gate Wellfield Reliability Improvements Project at a cost not
to exceed $164,286.00.
5) Recommendation to Award Surplus Bid No. S04-3594 for one 250
KW Generator to E.B. Simmonds Electrical Inc.
6) Recommendation to approve the well relocation agreement between
15
July 27,2004
.__...._,~..,.^...,-_..~.,.,,_....
Centex Homes and Collier County Water-Sewer District, and approve
the necessary budget amendment.
7) Recommendation to approve Work Order # MP-FT-04-04 under
Contract #00-3119 with Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. in an amount not to
exceed $350,000.00 to provide Project Management Support Services
for the Northeast Regional Water Treatment Plant and Water
Reclamation Facility, Project Numbers 70902 and 73156.
8) Recommendation to award Contract #04-3672 to Encore Construction
Company to construct the Goodland Water Booster Pumping Station
upgrades, in the amount of $690,000, recognize additional carry
forward, and approve the necessary budget amendment.
9) Recommendation to approve execution of a Letter of Agreement to
provide consulting services, not to exceed $18,067.50, for the
evaluation of a Utility Agreement between Collier County and the
City of Marco Island.
10) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution authorizing the acquisition of
Temporary Beach Restoration Easements required for the Collier
County Beach Restoration Project and Management Plan at a cost not
to exceed $2,000; Project 905271.
11) Recommendation to approve a change to a work order, under contract
# 01-3271, Fixed Term Professional Engineering Services for Coastal
Zone Management Projects, with Coastal Planning & Engineering
Inc., for Work Order CPE-FT-03-08, Permit Comment and Response,
Project 90527, for an additional $30,000.
12) Recommendation to approve Amendment 2 to Work Order CDM-FT-
03-02 under Contract #00-3119 for engineering services related to
adding one new public water supply well (Well 33) to the Tamiami
Well field at a cost amount not to exceed $52,286; Project 70158.
13) Recommendation to award Bid No. 04-3592 - "Collection Agency
Services for Collier County Utility Billing & Customer Service" to the
three (3) bidders with the lowest collection rate at an estimated annual
cost of approximately $50,000.
16
July 27,2004
14) Recommendation to approve Work Order ICTSCADA-REV-04-001
under Contract 04-3536 to Revere Control Systems for
Instrumentation, Controls and Electrical Installation Services related
to Manatee Road SCADA Upgrade in the amount of $1 05,330,
Project 70124.
15) Recommendation to amend Work Order MAC-FT-04-01 under
Contract 03-3484 to McKim & Creed Engineers for Implementation
and Integration Engineering Services related to Control and Telemetry
Upgrades for Carica, Vanderbilt and Barefoot Water Distribution
Pump Stations and for Water SCADA System Broadband Wide Area
Network in the amount of$188,650, Project 70124.
16) Recommendation to approve the Settlement Agreement with Ricky
and Christina McAleer (North Hawthorn Wellfield Water Supply
Transmission Mains Project No. 700751).
17) Recommendation to award to Golden Gate Well Drilling, Inc., Bid
No. 04-3683, Golden Gate Wellfield Reliability Improvements-
Tamiami Wellfield Drilling Services up to an amount not to exceed
$90,950 per well; Project 70158
18) Recommendation to approve a Work Order, under Contract # 01-
3271, Fixed Term Professional Engineering Services for Coastal Zone
Management Projects, with Taylor Engineering for the 2004
Monitoring of Marco Island, Project 90542, in an amount not to
exceed $78,916
19) Recommendation to approve conveyance of an Easement to Florida
Power & Light Company required in conjunction with the
construction of an improved Solid Waste Operations Center at a cost
not to exceed $18.50, Project Number 59005.
20) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment for $250,000, and
authorize Public Utilities Administrator to execute Work Order # PSI-
FT -04-02, to PSI, Inc under Contract NO. 03-3427 "Environmental
Engineering, Remediation and Restoration Services for Collier
County" to complete Phase I of The Cells 1 and 2 Restoration project
at the Naples Landfill in an amount not to exceed $250,000.
17
July 27, 2004
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to Award Bid No. 04-3668, "Refurbishment of a 25
ft. Boat" (dollar amount $67,441.21)
2) Recommendation to approve amending Resolution 03-244 for Collier
County EMS User Fees.
3) Recommendation to approve an Agreement with the Collier County
Child Advocacy Council, Inc. (CCCAC) to provide for mandated
services identified under Florida Statute 39.304(5).
4) Recommendation to award RFP No. 04-3618 "Tigertail Beach Water
and Beach Concession" with an anticipated revenue of$12,000 to
Recreational Facilities of America, Inc. for FY 05
5) Recommendation to approve a purchase in the amount of $31 ,896.12
for bleachers from Seating Constructors USA
6) Recommendation to approve a residential license agreement for the
law enforcement officer residence at Sugden Regional Park
7) Recommendation to approve a purchase in the amount of $67,398 for
replacement of turf maintenance equipment from Wesco Turf, Inc.
8) Recommendation to approve the Home Care for the Elderly budget
amendment and continuation grant in the amount of$97,359 and
authorize the Chairman to sign the agreement between Collier County
Board of County Commissioners and the Area Agency on Aging for
Southwest Florida, Inc., D/B/A Senior Solutions of Southwest Florida.
9) Recommendation to approve the Alzheimer's Disease Initiative
continuation grant in the amount of $105,706 and authorize the
Chairman to sign the agreement between Collier County Board of
County Commissioners and the Area Agency on Aging for Southwest
Florida, Inc., D/B/A Senior Solutions of Southwest Florida.
10) Recommendation to approve the Community Care for the Elderly
continuation grant in the amount of$614,132 and authorize the
Chairman to sign the agreement between Collier County Board of
18
July 27, 2004
--.........---.---.. ,., .
County Commissioners and the Area Agency on Aging for Southwest
Florida, Inc., D/B/A Senior Solutions of Southwest Florida.
11) Recommendation to purchase a rubberized natural grass field process
for a soccer field at Vineyards Community Park from Turf Solutions
Southeast at a cost of $30,000, to be funded by the Waste Tire Grant
Program
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) That the Board of County Commissioners award Bid No. 04-3621
Alarm Monitoring Services to Dehart Alarms for monitoring of fire
and burglar alarms. Estimated annual monitoring cost is $25,000.
2) Recommendation to award Quote # 04-0333 under contract # 02-3349
in the amount of$107,229.90, "Main Lobby Renovations of the
Collier County Courthouse" to Surety Construction Co.
3) Recommendation to approve an agreement between the American Red
Cross and the Board of County Commissioners to provide training to
Collier County employees to become "American Red Cross Health
and Safety" certified instructors and authorized providers of first aid,
CPR, and other health and safety education programs.
4) Recommendation to approve additions to the 2004 Fiscal Year Pay
and Classification Plan made from May 15,2004 through July 9,
2004.
5) Report and ratify staff-approved change orders and changes to work
orders to Board-approved contracts.
6) Recommendation to award a quote under Contract # 02-3349 in the
amount of$74,818.00, "Toilet Renovations for Building F" to Surety
Construction Co.
7) Report to the Board of County Commissioners concerning the sale
and transfer of items associated with the county surplus auction of
July 1 0, 2004, resulting in $9,526.60 in net revenues.
8) To approve a Budget Amendment for $66,382.00 for General Capital
19
July 27, 2004
Improvement Maintenance Project (Fire Alarm upgrades for
Government Center campus). (52525)
9) Recommendation to approve budget amendment to recognize
revenues and appropriate expenditures in the Purchasing Department
budget
10) Recommendation to approve a Lease Agreement with Nextel South
Corporation granting use of rooftop space atop Building 'L' for
annual revenue of $30,000 and a first year, one-time contribution of
$10,000.
11) Recommendation to ratify approval of a letter designating the Collier
County Early Literacy and Reading Partnership for Educational
Success as the Local Council for the Early Learning Opportunities Act
Discretionary Grants Program of the United States Department of
Health and Human Services.
12) Recommendation to declare certain county-owned modular furniture
pieces as surplus and authorize staff to properly dispose of these
items.
13) Recommendation to Approve the Advisory Committees Outstanding
Members Service Award Program
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Summary of Consent and Emergency Agenda Items approved by the
County Manager during the Board's scheduled recess. Per Resolution
Number 2000-149, "Approval of this Agreement by the County
Manager is subject to formal ratification by the Board of County
Commissioners. If the decision by the County Manager is not ratified
by that Board, this Agreement shall be enforceable against Collier
County only to the extent authorized by law in the absence of such
ratification of that Board."
2) Recommendation to Approve Three (3) Tourist Development
Category "C-2" Grant Applications and Three (3) Tourism
Agreements for Naples Botanical Garden $217,650; The Conservancy
of SW Florida $100,000; City of Naples $50,000; Totaling $367,650
20
July 27, 2004
for FY 05 and Approve the County Owned Museum Funding Request
of$1,276,900, and Direct Staff to Prepare Amendment to Ordinance
92-60 to Include Municipally-Owned Museums for C-2 Grants.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a
Resolution fixing the date, time and place for the Public Hearing for
approving the Special Assessment (Non-ad valorem Assessment) to
be levied against the properties within the Pelican Bay Municipal
Service Taxing and Benefit Unit for maintenance of the water
management system, beautification of recreational facilities and
median areas and maintenance of conservation or preserve areas, and
establishment of Capital Reserve Funds for ambient noise
management, maintenance of conservation or preserve areas, U.S. 41
berm, street signage replacements within the median areas and
landscaping improvements to U.S. 41 entrances, all within the Pelican
Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit
4) Recommendation to approve a Tourist Development Category "A"
FY 05 Grant Application and a Tourism Agreement Submitted by the
City of Naples for Monitoring of Doctors Pass in the Amount Of
$10,580.
5) Recommendation to approve special assessments as requested by the
Florida Association of Counties (F AC) for legal proceedings on
Department of Juvenile Justice Cost Shift and Additional Homestead
Exemption Constitutional Amendment in the total amount of$19,188.
6) Summary of 17 Fund 195 Tourist Development Category "A" Grant
Applications and Corresponding Tourism Agreements and other
Tourist Tax Funded Expenditures Totaling $24,724,568 for FY 04/05
7) Recommendation to Approve an Interlocal Agreement between
Collier County and the City of Naples Establishing Office Space for
our Collier County Film Commissioner Within the Norris Community
Center at $350.00 Per Month for use of the Premises.
8) Recommendation to Direct Staff to Prepare an Amendment to
Ordinance Number 92-18 Eliminating the Non-Voting Position from
The Tourist Development Council
21
July 27, 2004
9) Approve a Budget Amendment to Recognize and Appropriate
$14,400 of Isles of Capri Fire District Impact Fee Revenue
10) Approve a Budget Amendment to Recognize and Appropriate
$30,000 of Unanticipated Revenue from the Isles of Capri Fire
District Inspection Fees.
11) Approval of Budget Amendment Report.
12) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution authorizing the borrowing of
an amount not to exceed $6,000,000 from the Pooled Commercial
Paper Loan Program of the Florida Local Government Finance
Commission pursuant to the loan agreement between the Board of
County Commissioners and the Commission in order to finance the
acquisition of the Arthrex Building for the County Transportation
Division; authorizing the execution of a loan note or notes to evidence
such borrowing; agreeing to secure such loan note or notes with a
covenant to budget and appropriate legally available non-ad valorem
revenues as provided in the loan agreement; authorizing the execution
and delivery of such other documents as may be necessary to effect
such borrowing; and providing an effective date.
13) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution authorizing the borrowing of
an amount not to exceed $21,400,000 from the Pooled Commercial
Paper Loan Program of the Florida Local Government Finance
Commission pursuant to the loan agreement between the Board of
County Commissioners and the Commission in order to finance the
acquisition of certain real property within the County, collectively
known as America's Business Park, including the reimbursement of
certain expenses incurred by the County in connection therewith, if
necessary; authorizing the execution of a loan note or notes to
evidence such borrowing; agreeing to secure such loan note or notes
with a covenant to budget and appropriate legally available non-ad
valorem revenues as provided in the loan agreement; authorizing the
execution and delivery of such other documents as may be necessary
to effect such borrowing; and providing an effective date.
14) Recommendation to approve contract for RFP 04-3607 with Public
Financial Management, Inc., (PFM) for Financial Advisory Services
22
July 27, 2004
__.0-
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AREA
1) Authorize the Airport Authority to accept a grant from the Federal
Aviation Administration in the amount of $245,889 for the
construction of a parallel taxiway at the Everglades Airpark
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Halas request for Board approval for payment to attend
a function serving a valid public purpose. Attend the Greater Naples
Chamber of Commerce 2004 Annual Trade Show, August 25,2004 at
the Naples Beach Hotel; $15.00 to be paid from Commissioner Halas'
travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Request authorization to file the State of Florida Annual Local
Government Financial Report for the Fiscal Year 2002-2003 as
required by Florida Statute 218.32.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to authorize staff to prepare and submit an
application for the lease of submerged land (aquaculture) from the
State of Florida for one or two acre plots for marine research in
aquaculture.
2) Recommendation to approve a Partial Release of Lien imposed in
Resolution No. 2000-373, Resolution No. 2003-279 and Resolution
No. 2003-407, relating to code enforcement violations on property
owned by Mr. Leonard Wisniewski.
3) Recommendation to have the Board Approve the Stipulated Final
Judgment Relative to the Acquisition of Parcels 179 and 179T in the
Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Dr. Francisco O. Cortina, et aI.,
23
July 27,2004
-~-
Case NO. 00-0936-CA (Golden Gate Boulevard Project #63041).
4) Recommendation to approve the Mediated Settlement Agreement as
to Parcels 739 and 839 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Nancy
L. Johnson Perry, et aI., Case No. 03-2373-CA (Golden Gate Parkway
Road Project 60027).
5) Recommendation to approve the Stipulated Final Judgment as to
Parcel 138 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. John Aurigemma, et
aI., Case No. 04-344-CA (Vanderbilt Beach Road Project 63051).
6) Recommendation to approve the Agreed Order Awarding Guardian
Ad Litem Fees as to Parcel 326 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Agnaldo DeLima, et aI., Case No. 00-1 967-CA, Golden Gate Blvd. II
Project 63041 (total cost of $489.00).
7) Recommendation to approve the Stipulated Final Judgment as to
Parcel 146 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Elizabeth D. Bloch,
et aI., Case No. 03-2403-CA (Golden Gate Parkway Project 60027).
8) Recommendation to Approve Stipulated Final Judgment Relative to
the Acquisition of Parcel 114 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v.
Marian H. Gerace, as Successor Trustee, et aI., Pine Ridge Road
Project #60111.
9) Request by the Collier County Industrial Development Authority for
approval of a resolution authorizing the Authority to issue revenue
bonds to be used to finance certain costs of construction, renovation
and equipping of community, recreational, and social service facilities
for the YMCA of Collier County, Inc. and to refund currently
outstanding indebtedness for eligible expenditures.
10) Request by the Collier County Industrial Development Authority for
updated approval of a resolution authorizing the Authority to issue
revenue bonds to be used to finance manufacturing facilities for The
March Group LLC and March, Inc.
11) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Professional Services
between Collier County and the Office of the Public Defender for the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit of Florida.
24
July 27, 2004
12) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Professional Services
between Collier County and the Office of the State Attorney for the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit of Florida.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDA TION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE
QUASIJUDICAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN
IN.
A. THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN
IN AND EX PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY
COMMISSION MEMBERS. An Ordinance of the Board Of County
Commissioners amending Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, the Collier
County Land Development Code, or its successor, by providing for an
amendment to correct Ordinance No. 03-28, for the Tuscany Reserve
Planned Unit Development (PUD) and by providing for an effective date.
B. THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN
IN AND EX PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY
COMMISSION MEMBERS. Recommendation to approve A VPLA T2004-
AR5547 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County's and the Public's
interest in the 15 foot wide Drainage Easement located on Lots 27 and 28,
according to the plat of "North Collier Industrial Center," as recorded in Plat
Book 31, Pages 50 through 51, Public Records of Collier County, Florida,
and to accept a 15 foot wide relocation Drainage Easement on a portion of
Lots 28 and 29 of said "North Collier Industrial Center." Located in Section
10, Township 48 South, Range 25 East.
C. This item has heen continued from the June 29, 2004 BCC/Special
25
July 27, 2004
Meeting. An Ordinance Of Collier County Florida, Amending Collier
County Ordinance No. 97-8, As Amended, The False Alarm Ordinance;
Authorizing Violators To Appeal Citations To The Code Enforcement
Special Master; Authorizing The Sheriffs Office To Refer Unpaid Citations
To The Special Master; Providing That The Special Master Can Assess A
Civil Fine Up To $500 And Can File Liens Against Violator's Property;
Increasing Civil Fines For Five Or More False Alarm Violations; Providing
That Class Certificates For Credit Against A Future Violation Expire After
365 Days Of Issuance Date
D. THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN
IN AND EX PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY
COMMISSION MEMBERS. The applicant is seeking an after-the-fact
variance to allow the separation between Building 6 and Building 7 of the
Cypress Glen PUD to remain at 13.75 feet rather than the 15-foot separation
required between buildings in the Cypress Glen PUD. The two buildings are
currently under construction. A spot survey disclosed Buildings 6 and 7
were 13.75 feet apart rather than the 15 feet required. This is the result of a
drawing error. The applicant is therefore requesting a 1.25-foot building
separation variance to allow the buildings to remain where they are currently
located.
E. THIS ITEM REQmRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN
IN AND EX PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY
COMMISSION MEMBERS. PUDZ-2003-AR-4046, Dwight Nadeau, of
RW A Consulting, Inc., representing Waterways Joint Venture IV, requesting
a rezone from Rural Agricultural (A) and Planned Unit Development (PUD,
known as Hibiscus Village PUD) to PUD to be known as Summit Place in
Naples PUD for a residential development consisting of98.4 + acres and
394 dwelling units for property located at 14625 Collier Boulevard which is
on the west side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) and approximately 7,00 feet
north of Wolfe Road, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida.
F. Recommendation to approve a Mandatory Non-Residential Recycling
Ordinance
G. This item continued indefinitely. Recommendation to adopt Resolution
increasing the Regulatory Assessment Fee from the current 2.0% up to
3.75% of the gross revenues for nonexempt, investor-owned water and/or
26
July 27, 2004
wastewater systems subject to local regulation and the Florida Governmental
Utility Authority, pursuant to Interlocal Agreement, effective October 1,
2004.
H. Ordinance to Amend Collier County Ordinance No. 87-60 to Authorize the
County's Transportation Department to Issue Permits that Authorize In-the-
traveled-road Solicitations of Charitable Contributions
I. Recommendation to approve and enact an Ordinance allowing the
obtainment of State of Florida and Federal Bureau of Investigation record
checks through mandatory fingerprinting of current and new employees,
vendors and contractors in certain positions related to Security and/or Public
Safety.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
27
July 27, 2004
July 27, 2004
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. The July 27th
Board of County Commissioners meeting is called to order. And
today, our -- the minister that was to be here is not here. He called in
to say that he was going to be running a little bit late. That's Pastor
Craig Canfield, Eagle's Nest Worship Center, but we're running on
such a tight time schedule, we're going to ask the minister resident
in-house -- resident minister in-house, Jim Mudd, to say a prayer.
So would you-all please stand. Father Mudd?
MR. MUDD: That's my brother, ma'am.
Heavenly Father, we come to you today as a community
thanking you for the blessings that you have so generously provided.
Today we are especially thankful for the dedicated elected officials,
staff, and members of the public who are here to help lead this county
as it makes the important decisions that will shape our community's
future.
We pray that you would guide, lead, and direct the decisions
made here today so that your will for our county would always be
done.
These things we pray in your holy name, Amen.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Amen. And please join me in the Pledge
of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in
unison. )
2
July 27,2004
Item #2A
REGULAR CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
And County Attorney, do you have anything to add to this
agenda this morning, County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Good morning, Madam Chairman,
Commissioners.
On behalf of the agenda, I would like to have Marjorie Student
address some matters for the record pertaining to the summary agenda,
if she may.
MS. STUDENT: Thank you. Good morning. For the record,
Marj orie Student, assistant county attorney.
This pertains to item 17E. It is a rezone from PUD to PUD for
Summit Place, and it's only technical in nature.
But because we have a new unified land development code, the
references in the PUD to the LDC contain language after each
reference to, or successor provision, and also there was a reference to
a utilities ordinance, which has recently been changed, and that's been
changed from 97-1 7 to ordinance 04-31.
And in the environmental stipulations, the way it read originally,
it made it look like the PUD could vary the compo plan, which is not
the case, so we broke it down into two sentences to make that clear,
and that was a staff stipulation, and the petitioner's aware of these
changes and is okay with them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much, Ms. Student.
Any other comments from the county attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: No, none at this time. I think Mr. Mudd will
catch the rest. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. From the Clerk of Court's office.
3
July 27, 2004
Do we have anything from Mr. Mitchell?
MR. MITCHELL: (Shakes head.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
And now we go on to the county manager, who has a load of
things for us.
MR. MUDD: Agenda changes, Board of County Commission's
(sic) meeting, July 27th, 2004.
The first item is withdraw item 6A, and that's a public petition
request by Patrick J. Lee to discuss air show -- to discuss an air show
to be held at the lmmokalee Airport in 2005, and that was withdrawn
at petitioner's request.
The next item is continue item 10Q indefinitely. The petitioner
requests that this item be continued indefinitely. Recommendation to
deny the request for Waterways Joint Venture IV for a refund of
transportation impact fees totaling $217,830 for the Summit Place
project. Again, that's at petitioner's request.
Next item is to add item 13A, and this came late after the agenda
was already to the printer, and that's a recommendation that the BCC
serve as the local coordinating unit of government in the Florida
Department of Law Enforcement's Edward Byrne Memorial State and
Local Law Enforcement Assistance Formula Grant, approve the
sheriffs office grant application, authorize acceptance of the grant
award, and approve associated budget amendments, and that's at
Sheriff Hunter's request.
Next item is to withdraw item 16B8, and that's a recommendation
to approve exemptions and variances to the land development code
which pertains to sidewalks, and that's at staffs request.
The next item is item 16E13, and that's a request to continue this
item indefinitely. And this is a recommendation to approve the
Advisory Committee's Outstanding Members Service Award Program,
and that's at staffs request.
The next item is to move item 16F2 to lOR, and that's a
4
July 27, 2004
recommendation to approve three tourist development category C-2
grant applications and three tourism agreements for the Naples
Botanical Gardens, $217,650, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida,
$100,000, and the City of Naples $50,000, totalling $367,650, for the
FY-'05 budget year, and approve the county-owned museum funding
request of one million two hundred sixty -- excuse me -- $1,276,900,
and direct staff to prepare an amendment to ordinance 92-60 to
include municipally-owned museums for C-2 grants, and that's at
Commissioner Henning's request.
Then the following notes. When we sent -- and this is just a little
aside. When we sent the electronic agenda to the printer from the time
that it -- from the -- from when it got to the diskette till it went to the
printed page, there was a series of items in the agenda as far as backup
material that didn't -- that didn't show up in the printed version and has
since been corrected, and I'll start with these notes.
Note, 8B. This item is listed correctly on the agenda index but
the backup material is incorrect in the packet. The correct backup
material has been made available.
Item 16A24. There are two 16A24 items. The backup materials
for this item are correct but numbered incorrectly. The second 16A24
should be numbered 16A25.
Next item, item 16B9. Approval of this agreement is subject to
the Transportation Disadvantage Commission approval, and the reason
for that is we thought that the commission would already have their
approved agreement here to the board, but they're still -- they're still
revIewIng same.
Next item is item 16C20. The backup material for this item was
omitted from printed agenda packet. The material has been made
available.
Next item is item 16D2. The executive summary incorrectly lists
the proposed FY -'05 BLS non-emergency transport rate at $350. The
correct rate for this service is $500 per transport as correctly stated in
5
July 27, 2004
the resolution.
Next item is item 16D3. The backup material for this item was
omitted from the printed agenda packet. This material has been made
available.
Item 16Dll. The backup material for this item was omitted from
the printed agenda packet. This material has been made available.
Item 16F14. The backup material for this item was omitted from
printed agenda packet. The backup material has been made available.
Item 17C. This item is listed correctly on the agenda index, but
the backup material is incorrect in the packet. The correct backup
material has been made available.
And lastly, item 17D. The backup material in the printed agenda
packet is incorrect. The correct material has been made available.
And then just as a side note, there's time certains.
Item 8B, which has to do with the evaluation and appraisal
report, will be heard at three p.m.
And then item 10F and lOG that have to do with the award of the
overpass contract and the contract to CEI will be -- will be a time
certain at one p.m.
That's all I have, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Commissioners, do you have any ex parte disclosures for the
summary agenda or any comments or questions regarding the agenda
itself? And I will start with Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: As far as any additions or
corrections to the -- today's agenda, I don't have any.
As far as ex parte in the summary agenda, 1 7 -- 1 7D, I have
email, and 17E, I also have email, and I have it here if anybody wants
to look at it.
I have no other disclosures on the other items on the summary
agenda.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
6
July 27, 2004
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no changes to the agenda.
I do have a comment here on seven (sic) -- in the summary agenda on
E. I did receive email, and I did have some meetings, and it's in my
agenda packet, if anyone wishes to see it.
And Madam Chair, if I may, I'd like to see if there would be any
interest on the part of the commission, that if we do run late, that we
might be able to extend any items for tomorrow morning. If only three
commissioners need to deal with it, it shouldn't be a problem. The
Chair could set the priorities on the agenda. And if we do run to the
point where we get to some ungodly hour, we might be able to
continue the more mundane items tomorrow morning, if we have three
commissioners that are available.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. Because you know I won't be here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I know that, that's why I
was suggesting that we might -- if we get to a point where we get into
a squeeze, you might want to adjust the schedule so that we can save
those items for later.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, we have the room reserved. Let me
see that -- what I was going to ask you guys when it's my turn to speak
-- and so here I am jumping in right now --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to jump
in front of you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, no. No, it was your turn. What I just
wanted to say was, I'm going to ask everybody, if they can, to write
their questions down, ask concise questions and not -- not ramble any.
I'm going to try and keep all of the speakers on track so that we get
them on and off quickly . We're going to try and not languish in this
meeting, but rather move it along rather rapidly. And I'm going to ask
everybody's cooperation to do that. And if that be the case, hopefully
we get out of here by --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: At your discretion.
7
July 27, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. If we're going anywhere past
nine, then we'll talk about it, okay?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And thank you very much for bringing
that up, Commissioner Coletta. I appreciate that.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I feel that if we stay on task
today, we can -- we can get done today, so that's my goal, to move
business today.
The ex parte communication that I have is on 1 7D (sic), and I had
some meetings with staff, some correspondence through emails and
phone calls, and they're all in my file if anybody would wish to review
those.
There is one concern that I have on 17B8 ( sic), staff withdrawing
that which -- who has a concern?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 17?
MR. MUDD: 16B8, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 16B8.
MR. MUDD: B8, on sidewalks? Commissioner, the attorney's
office said that they would -- it needs to come through as more of a
variance process versus an agenda item for the board. It's in your land
development code, and we need to do it in the proper procedures, and
that's why we withdrew it so that we could get it done the right way.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is -- part of this was board
directed.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I can't understand why
we're -- we let it go this far as to put an item on the agenda and then
have concerns at the last minute. This is not doing the public's
business.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, Commissioner, the item didn't come to the
8
July 27, 2004
attorney's office until we saw it on the agenda, and so we noted that it
-- to assure that there wouldn't be issues with the board's action, which
I think we understand is -- by direction, is going to occur, that we
wanted to bring it -- bring it back at the next meeting so that we can
put it to rest, because even if the board approved what was presented
today, it technically, legally, would not put the item to rest, and,
therefore, keep the subj ect properties at a kind of risk for further issue.
And so, it was upon our review of the agenda that we said, well,
it's not -- it's not in the form that it can go forward. It did not come to
our office at all.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This was -- part of this was a
request -- a public petition request and we asked to put it on the
agenda, and this is the forum that it came in. And if the county
attorney's office had problems with it at that time, why wasn't that
resolved before a continuation on today's meeting? I think that public
request was back in June.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it was. It was at the June 22nd meeting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When can we resolve this issue?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it would be resolved at the next meeting of
the board, which I believe is September 14th. It's really a question of
the sidewalk -- the sidewalk situations being recognized as
appropriate, although they are at variance with the land development
code, and it's a code matter to be -- to be reconciled, not merely an
approval by the board, or it would be an issue that would potentially
come up again for those -- for those property owners.
So it appeared to me that from the board's direction on June
22nd, that the county, code enforcement staff, all the county staff
recognize that it's not an enforcement issue, it's not a debate issue as to
a problem on the premises, but that it's a question of getting it in the
form that the board can approve it, and then it's just finished.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're assuring the board this
is going to be in the first meeting in September?
9
July 27, 2004
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, that's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's acceptable to you?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I guess I have to accept it.
I have no other choice.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: With that, I'll make a motion to
approve --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I can't do that yet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Excuse me, but thank you.
Also for me, I have an ex parte disclosure, and that is 17E. I've
had meetings and also I've received emails, and they're all in my ex
parte folder.
And do we have any registered speakers for the summary
agenda?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. We have one registered speaker,
Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Bob Krasowski. I'm speaking at this moment to
request that an item from the consent agenda, as well as the summary
agenda, be put on the regular agenda so there can be discussion and a
presentation.
The consent agenda item is 16C7. It's the request for an
expenditure of $350,000 to Malcolm Pirnie for some work on the
Orange Tree area wastewater, water treatment plant that -- the utilities
proj ects up there. I have some additional comments to make on that,
if you do decide to put it on the agenda. I'm not prepared at this time
to make those comments, but I do have notes written down.
And it ties into a lot of work that these people have done for the
utilities department, and it ties into a lot of issues that are now --
you're aware of through emails from a former employee, and through
10
July 27, 2004
our work with you, with the county regarding the solid waste issue,
how the assignment of very expensive consultant projects have been
given out, and I would -- I would suggest later, if you put this on the
agenda -- otherwise I'll speak under public comment -- that this
$350,000 be diverted to the shortfall in the sheriffs department. Let's
spend the money where we need it and not, you know, in this type of
thing.
Then the other item is item 1 7F, which is the mandatory
non-residential recycling ordinance, which much work has been done
in the county, and the Chamber of Commerce, the Zero Waste Collier
County group have been working on this for years.
It's the type of issue that we want to all get behind and promote.
And I think to miss the opportunity to make it part of the agenda, get it
out in front of the people today is a bit puzzling.
I would -- I would request that that agenda -- that item be put on
the open agenda so that the county can make their presentation, we
can make comments on it. It looks to be a pretty good effort, but we
should take the opportunity now to discuss it and refine it or make
suggestions on its refinement and to discuss how we are going to
evaluate it as time moves on.
Those are my requests. Thank you for your attention to my
comments, and I hope you'll honor my request on behalf of the public.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have no comment.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Make--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion to approve the
agenda as amended.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I second that motion.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
11
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Passes 4-0.
12
July 27, 2004
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
Julv 27.2004
Withdraw Item 6A: Public Petition Request by Patrick J. Lee to discuss air show
to be held at the Immokalee Airport in 2005. (Petitioner request.)
Continue Item 10Q indefinitelv: The petitioner requests that this item be
continued indefinitely. Recommendation to deny the request by Waterways Joint
Venture IV for a refund of Transportation Impact Fees totaling $217,830 for the
Summit Place project. (Petitioner request.)
Add On Item #13A: Recommendation that the BCC serve as the local coordinating
unit of government in the Florida Department of Law Enforcement's Edward Byrne
Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Formula Grant, approve
the Sheriff's office grant application, authorize acceptance of the grant award and
approve associated budget amendments. (Sheriff Hunter's request.)
Withdraw Item 16B8: Recommendation to approve exemptions and variances to
the Land Development Code (sidewalks). (Staff request.)
Item 16E13: Request to continue this item indefinitely. Recommendation to
approve the Advisory Committees Outstanding Members Service Award Program.
(Staff request.)
Move Item 16F2 to 10R: Recommendation to approve three (3) Tourist
Development Category "C-2" Grant Applications and Three (3) Tourism
Agreements for Naples Botanical Garden $217,650; The Conservancy of SW
Florida $100,000; City of Naples $50,000; Totaling $367,650 for FY 05, and approve
the County-owned Museum funding request of $1,276,900, and direct staff to
prepare amendment to Ordinance 92-60 to include municipally-owned museums
for C-2 grants. (Commissioner Henning request.)
Note:
Item 8B: This item is listed correctly on the agenda index, but the backup material
is incorrect in the packet. The correct backup material has been made available.
Item 16A24: There are two 16(A)24 items. The backup materials for this item are
correct but numbered incorrectly. The second 16(A)24 should be numbered
16(A)25.
Item 16B9: Approval of this agreement is subject to the Transportation
Disadvantaged Commission approval.
Item 16C20: The backup material for this item was omitted from printed agenda
packet. This material has been made available.
Item 16D2: The executive summary incorrectly lists the proposed FY 05 BLS non-
emergency transport rate at $350. The correct rate for that service is $500 per
transport as correctly stated in the Resolution.
1
Item 1603: The backup material for this item was omitted from the printed agenda
packet. This material has been made available.
Item 16011: The backup material for this item was omitted from the printed
agenda packet. This material has been made available.
Item 16F14: The backup material for this item was omitted from printed agenda
packet. This material has been made available.
Item 17C: This item is listed correctly on the agenda index, but the backup
material is incorrect in the packet. The correct backup material has been made
available.
Item 170: The backup material in the printed agenda packet is incorrect. The
correct material has been made available.
Time Certain Items
Item 8B to be heard at 3:00 p.m. This item requires that all participants be sworn
in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommend
that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approve a
resolution adopting the seven year Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) of the
Collier County Growth Management Plan for transmittal to the Department of
Community Affairs (DCA) for sufficiency review according to the procedures and
criteria outlined in Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes, Evaluation and Appraisal of
Comprehensive Plan.
Item 10F to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. Recommendation to award a construction
contract in the amount of $32,999,885 to Magnum Construction Management Corp.
d/b/a MCM Corp. and reserve $2,397,500 in funding allowances to construct 6-lane
road improvements and a grade separated overpass on Golden Gate Parkway
generally between Airport-Pulling Road and Livingston Road, Project No. 60006,
Bid No. 04-3653, Fiscal Impact $35,397,385.
Item 10G to be heard immediatelv followina 10F: Recommendation to approve
selection of qualified firm and award a contract under ITQ 04-3583 "Services for
Collier County Road Projects" for Project No. 60006 "Golden Gate Parkway Grade
Separated Overpass and Appurtenances, Bear's Paw to Livingston Road" in the
amount of $2,367,811.
2
July 27, 2004
Item #2B, 2C, 2D, 2E & 2F
MINUTES OF THE JUNE 8, 2004 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 22,
2004 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 29, 2004 SPECIAL MEETING,
JUNE 29, 2004 BUDGET HEARING MEETING, AND THE JUNE
30, 2004 BUDGET HEARING MEETING - APPROVED AS
ERESENIED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the June 8th,
'04, BCC regular meeting and June 22nd, '04, BCC regular meeting;
June 29th, '04, BCC special meeting; June 29th, '04, BCC budget
hearing; June 30th, '04, budget -- BCC budget hearing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second that motion.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION TO RECOGNIZE AUGUST 3, 2004 AS
Okay. We move on to proclamations, and Commissioner Halas,
you have the privilege of giving -- of reading this proclamation to the
National Night Out in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Would Corporal Ray Erickson of
the sheriffs department please step forward.
13
July 27,2004
It gives me great pleasure to read this proclamation in regards to:
Whereas, the National Association of Town Watch, NATW, is
sponsoring a unique nation-wide crime, drug, terrorist prevention
program on August 3rd, 2004, entitled National Night Out; and,
Whereas, the 21st (sic) National Night Out provides a unique
opportunity for Collier County, Florida, to join forces with thousands
of other communities across the country in promoting cooperative
police community crime prevention efforts; and,
Whereas, the Naples/Collier County N eighborhood Watch,
Incorporated, plays a vital role in assisting the sheriffs department
through joint crime, drug, and terrorist prevention efforts in Collier
County, Florida, and is supporting National Night Out, 200 -- National
Night Out 2004; and,
Whereas, it is essential that all citizens of Collier County,
Florida, be aware of the importance of crime prevention programs and
the impact that their participation can have on reducing crime, drugs,
and terrorist activity in their county; and,
Whereas, deputy-community partnerships, neighborhood safety
awareness, and cooperation are important themes of the National
Night Out program.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Tuesday, August 3rd,
2004, be recognized as National Night Out in Collier County, Florida,
and for all citizens of Collier County, Florida, to join the
Naples/Collier County Neighborhood Watch and National Association
of Town Watch in supporting the 21st Annual Night Out on Tuesday,
August 3rd, 2004.
In addition, all citizens are invited to see on display crime
fighting and emergency equipment at a county-wide event at the
Coastland Center Mall on July 31 st, 2004, between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m.
Done and ordered this 27th day of July, 2004, Board of County
14
July 27, 2004
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Donna Fiala, Chairman.
And I move that we approve this proclamation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll second that.
CORPORAL ERICKSON: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That sounds like a lot of fun. Are you
going to have the little robot there? Oh, cool. His son's going to love
the robot. Thank you.
Would you like to say a few words, Ray?
MR. MUDD: Let's get a photo.
CORPORAL ERICKSON: Thank you very much, folks. The
sheriffs office would --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Up to the microphone --
MR. MUDD: Right by that microphone. Come on up.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: There you go.
CORPORAL ERICKSON: Thank you very much, folks.
The sheriffs office would like to invite everybody to come on out
and take a bite against crime, fight crime, and get out and meet your
neighbors on Tuesday, August the 3rd.
If you get a chance, come down to the mall. Marco Island, the
Collier County Sheriffs Office, City of Naples and some of our other
state and federal agencies will be down there to answer questions and
to see if we can enlighten you on what we do here in Collier County.
Thank you very much.
15
July 27, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. You do great work, Ray,
really.
CORPORAL ERICKSON: Thank you.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION BY THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
AUXILIARY TO THE COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY
DEPARTMENT AND COLLIER COUNTY CITIZEN CORPS FOR
THE TREMENDOUS ASSISTANCE IN HELPING VOLUNTEER
ORGANIZATIONS PROMOTE THE GOALS AND MISSIONS OF
THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD AUXILIARY
THROUGHOUT COLLIER COUNTY. TO BE ACCEPTED BY JIM
VONRINTELN, COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a presentation by -- or
for the United States Coastguard Axillary to be read by Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Could -- would Jim
von Rinteln from our Emergency Management come up front, please.
On behalf of the Collier County Coastguard Auxiliary of Flotilla,
it is their pleasure to, through us, to present the enclosed Certificate of
Appreciation to the Collier County Emergency Department and the
Collier County Citizens Corps for tremendous assistance in helping
our volunteer organization promote the goals and mission of the
United States Coast Guard Auxiliary throughout Collier County.
Matching grant funds for distribution and printing our newest
edition "Hurricane Preparing Your Boat" was only possible with
Collier County Citizens Corps as a working partner.
In addition, the opportunity of attending various Citizens Corps
seminars on disaster-related subjects has proven to be a most valued
16
July 27, 2004
asset as we dissimulate (sic) the information to the community we all
serve.
And on behalf of the Coast Guard and Collier County
Commission, it's my pleasure, sir, to present you with this award. And
we'd like to have a --
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Like to say a few words, Jim.
MR. von RINTELN: Sure. On behalf of the Collier County
Emergency Management Department and Citizens Corps, it has been a
very good relationship working with the Coast Guard Auxiliary and
towards the putting together of preparedness information as well as the
Citizens Corps activities, not only hurricanes but with homeland
security. So it's been a great relationship. We look forward to future
endeavors together.
Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commission -- Madam Chair, if I may indulge.
Can I have the members of the Citizens Corps and the Coast Guard
Auxiliary please stand? Their voluntary efforts definitely do serve
this community. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: My Kiwanis buddy, Walter, is here.
Aren't you the commander over there, Walter? Oh, I'm so glad you're
here. Thank you.
Item #5B
AWARD TO SHARON DOWNEY, RSVP PROJECT DIRECTOR,
FOR THE HELEN K. F ALLERT AWARD FOR EXEMPLARY
SERVICES TO THE ELDERLY IN SOUTHWEST FLORIDA.
PRESENTED BY LEIGH WADE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
SENIOR SO~C
17
July 27, 2004
Next we move on to an award to Sharon Downey. Sharon, would
you come up front, please.
Good morning. Little embarrassing moment, isn't it? And you're
going to have to even turn around and face everyone.
MS. DOWNEY: Okay. Will do.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: The Collier County Government Retired
and Senior Volunteer Program which, of course, is the RSVP, is part
of the Senior Corps, the network of national service programs that
provides older Americans with opportunities to apply their life
experiences to meeting community needs.
RSVP volunteers serve in a diverse range of nonprofit
organizations, public agencies, and faith-based groups. Led by Sharon
Downey, the organization is seen as an effective force within Collier
County .
Open to the people age 55 and over in both the public and private
sector, RSVP sponsors seniors to serve from a few hours a month to
almost full time as volunteers. Most are paired with local community
and faith-based organizations that are helping to meet community
needs.
The Collier County RSVP Program was recently recognized
nationally as an outstanding county volunteer program -- that's quite
an award -- award of the National Association of Counties Acts of
Caring Awards, Ms. Downey's program was acknowledged one of the
top volunteer programs in the country.
Kenneth Mayfield, president of NACo, which is the National
Association of Counties, said that in discussing the award, that these
programs are unique partnerships between county governments and
the communities.
The quality of life in our communities is enhanced because of the
work of our nation's counties and their volunteers.
Ms. Downey is viewed as an enthusiastic, positive, inspirational
ambassador for elders in Collier County. As president of the Council
18
July 27, 2004
on Aging in Collier County, she has re-energized that group as it
focuses on the goal of obtaining a senior center for elders in the
community.
It is with great pleasure to recognize the achievements of Ms.
Downey in our community and her receiving this award from Ms.
Leigh Wade, executive director of Senior Solutions of Southwest
Florida.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let us shake your hand. What a great
attribute, nationally, wow.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And well deserved.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sharon, here's a little something that I
read, in case you'd like to keep that with you.
MS. DOWNEY: I would.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Get a picture.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you like to say a few words,
Sharon?
MS. DOWNEY: I think Ms. Wade is going to.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, very good. Thank you.
MS. WADE: Good morning. My name is Leigh Wade, and I'm
with Senior Solutions of Southwest Florida, and it's certainly a
privilege to come up here today and present this award to Collier
County Government RSVP Program and Sharon Downey.
And as you've heard, many of the efforts that that group has
provided to many of the senior citizens in Collier County is so
valuable to our senior citizens. It helps to prevent or delay premature
nursing home placement. And it is so important to continue those type
efforts. And once again, we congratulate Collier County Government
RSVP program on the award.
(Applause. )
19
July 27,2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. Now we have the auxiliary from
Fort Myers that would like to present a few awards. Would you like
to come forward.
MR. JASKIEWICZ: Madam Chairman, members of the Collier
County Board of Commissioners. I'm Walter Jaskiewicz. I'm the
commander of the auxiliary station in Marco Island, and the award
that Mr. Coletta presented to the Citizen Corps was on behalf of the
auxiliary; however, we have my boss, the commander of the United
States Coast Guard, Commander Peter Lizzao (phonetic), is here with
an additional award to present.
COMMANDER LIZZAO: Good morning, Madam Chair and
Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good morning.
COMMANDER LIZZAO: I have two Certificates of
Appreciation that I would like to present; one to the Collier County
Emergency Department and one to the Citizens Corps, so if I could
have those individuals present, come forward.
Over the last three years, these two departments have been
donating their time and efforts in supporting the Coast Guard
Auxiliary and all their efforts in building a boat ramp at Caxambas
Pass, putting on a boating safety seminar for Hurricanes for Boats, and
working with Capri Island fire, Naples fire, and Marco Island fire and
rescue and training them in boating safety type issues.
Your support is greatly appreciated, and it only enhances their
ability to get it out in the public. So I'd like to present each one of you
with a certificate, and it reads: United States Coast Guard, Station
Fort Myers Beach, Certificate of Appreciation for Collier County
Emergency Management Department for outstanding support to the
missions and goals of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary of
Collier County.
And the other one reads the same for the Citizens Corps:
Certificate of Appreciation for Collier County Citizens Corps for
20
July 27, 2004
outstanding support to the missions and goals of the United States
Coast Guard Auxiliary of Collier County.
Thank you very much for your support.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, thank you very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY MR. DEL ACKERMAN TO
DISCUSS PAINTING STANDARDS RELATING TO DEL'S 24-
HOUR STORE ON BA YSHORE ROAD - PETITIONER TO GO
And now we move on to the portion of our agenda that's public
petitions. And the first one today will be a public petition request by
Del Ackerman to discuss painting standards relating to Del's 24-hour
store on Bayshore Road.
MR. ACKERMAN: Good morning, Madam Chairman and
ladies and gentlemen of the county.
My name is Del Ackerman. We have a store, as everybody
knows, on Bayshore and Thomasson. We've been there around the
clock for 35 years. I'm the janitor and my wife Nancy is the president.
With her help, we've made it around the clock.
As pertaining to -- we made out four brochures pertaining to the
painting of the corner on Bayshore and Thomasson.
In February we had a meeting, Nancy and I, to repaint the corner.
We made it charcoal and white with a red door. We painted for about
three weeks. The code enforcement was going back and forth behind
the store and around the store for almost six weeks.
Six weeks later we get a petition in the mail that we had two
weeks to repaint the building, that charcoal was not an earth tone
21
~_.^~_.-.,_.
July 27, 2004
color. So I looked down at the ground and I said, if that's not earth
tone, what is earth tone?
So we got some information. And by the way, we hired -- on the
first page, it's called Rendon Painting Contractors. They have a
license here in Collier County. They have been approved by Collier
County. I contacted them, I contacted six other contractors, and I
contacted six other painters. I said, what is the code enforcement for
Collier County pertaining to colors? Everybody said, what are you
talking about? So that covers number one.
Number two, not being a painting contractor, I went to the
American Heritage Dictionary. The next page, page two, any paints
mixed with brown makes earth tone. The second page, also states
charcoal; charcoal comes from the earth.
The petition says -- I called many stores, I went to car dealers, I
went to paint stores, I went all over. I said, I want an earth tone car.
Well, they looked at me like I wasn't playing with a full deck. Then I
broke it down, and they said anything with a brown pigment in it is an
earth tone. So we painted the -- the thing that amazes me is we
painted the store for six weeks. Six weeks that store was painted.
Right over here to the side was the code enforcement making
sure that I lowered the sign. The sign that was brought out was red and
white. So we went ahead -- they watched the whole thing being done.
They smiled at me. They had my coffee. Everybody had a great time.
Forty-two days after, I got two weeks to take charcoal off of my
building. I have never been certified in the mail. I have never
received a letter certified in the mail. I have never received a letter.
One of my customers handed me the complaint. It says on here that it
was certified. It was never certified by the code enforcement
department.
I get a call every week from the code enforcement department. I
never have personally sat down and had anybody -- I worked for the
State of Florida. The first think you do is you bring a card in. Good
22
July 27, 2004
morning, Mrs. Smith. I'm with the State of Florida. Here's the
department and here's the trouble. I have nobody come into the store
and talk to me at all.
I put a petition in the store. Do you feel that I should repaint the
store? Because I want to follow the Collier (sic). I think you people
are doing a fantastic job. All you commissioners are. But down the
middle somewhere, zoning department or code enforcement, we got
problems. We got problems, and you folks are trying very hard to go
to Washington to get planes over here in Immokalee, and I give you
kids a lot of credit.
But every time you call the code enforcement as a small
businessman, it takes about four hours to get an answer. And the
minute you make that decision, you're immediately in trouble.
The other day I was coming back from Six/L farms. I started at
951. I drove to Town Centre. I stopped counting. It scared me. Over
40 some small businesses closed in Collier County. I bet by the time I
got to the corner it would have been 61.
Now, we can go out of town and we can bring small businesses
into Naples, but we can almost do the same thing right here in the
United States. All we have to do is sit down and talk to these people,
tell us what they want, and we'll do our best to go ahead and get the
job for them.
But if you're going to open in this town right now, your children,
my children, anybody's children, if you're going to open a $100,000
building, business, by the time you get done, it's going to cost you
$200,000 here in Collier County.
You're going to put a certain paint, you're going to put a certain
color -- I don't know if they're going to charge 25 cents for the
bathrooms or not -- you're going to put bushes over here, bushes over
here.
And to be very honest with you, I don't think it's funny anymore.
I've been here 35 years on that corner. I painted the building eight
23
July 27, 2004
times, and guess what? I've had no trouble at all. And now, all of a
sudden, I'm in big trouble over charcoal and white.
I have 750 signatures here from registered voters that thinks the
store looks absolutely great. Code enforcement, through a telephone
conversation at quarter to six at night, says I have one complaint. I
went next door. I don't want to use anybody's name because I don't
think it's fair to use anybody's name next door when they're not here to
defend their own backyard.
I went next door, there's over 200 feet of black fence. I went
down the street, there's a club down there. It's blue. Blue is not earth
tone. Then I went to -- down the street further is blue and gray. I'm
totally confused that you would wait -- I thought the code enforcement
was to help us so we could all work together.
I know, Mrs. Fiala, whenever you speak you always say, let's not
yell at each other. I give you a lot of credit on the radio. Let's not yell
at each other. Let's sit down and talk it over.
And I'll tell you, folks, my biggest problem in Collier County --
the people in Naples, all the people in Naples have been wonderful to
me. I have a very, very good business. I have black people, I have
white people, I have blue people, and I have tan people, and we all get
along real, real fine.
But there's a downfall there. Somewhere in the middle of our
department, and the -- I've been -- you know, as you know, my 951
store was taken overnight. Everybody in town knows that, overnight.
Now, are we doing the same thing to Del on Bayshore and
Thomasson as we did on 951? I would like you to see the pictures of
the whole neighborhood, because we took them, of Del's. I think it
looks great. Of course, I picked the color. I might be a little
prejudiced. But here's the whole corner. You see blues, grays, all the
colors in the world.
And I know you people are very fair. And I didn't want to go up
the steps, I wanted to go to the top right away, and have you folks, in
24
July 27, 2004
the next week or so, make a decision. Because I hope one thing you
do -- you're doing a fine job, and I hope you bring back the red, white,
and blue in Naples, Florida, and God bless each and every one of you.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was paIntIng my bedroom
ceiling this morning white, and I just want to know if I'm in trouble.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you like to bring this back to be
heard on a regular agenda, Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to hear from staff first,
and then we can take an approach at it. I, for one, asked them to come
today because of the fact that --
MR. ACKERMAN: Thanks to you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- I couldn't make heads or tails
out of what an earth tone color is, and the definition in the dictionary
was even more confusing. At that point in time -- I, of course, one
commissioner, I can't do anything, so I asked if he would consider
coming under public petition.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, code
enforcement director.
I just want to read for you what the code actually says. The use
of black, gray, fluorescent, primary colors and/or secondary colors is
prohibited as the predominant exterior building or roof color, and
that's what we've addressed, because it's the predominant color on the
building. And then it goes on to say that earth tone colors are
encouraged.
I have discussed with the planning department whether or not
that there is a variance process that Mr. Ackerman can go through.
I've been advised that that's not the case. But we're just merely
enforcing the code. His building, as you can see from the photos that
he's passing around -- I'm assuming that's what he's passing around --
25
July 27, 2004
is primarily black with white trim.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Did you say it was strongly
suggested or is actually the code?
MS. ARNOLD: With respect to the black, it is expressly
prohibited as a primary color.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioners, we can't make a decision
on this anyway today because this is the under the petition form.
Would you like to bring it back?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we direct the county
manager to see if he can resolve this issue, and if not, bring it back to
the Board of Commissioners?
MS. ARNOLD: This is something actually going before your
Code Enforcement Board.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's where it needs to go.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You say it has or it's going to?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's going to.
MS. ARNOLD: It's scheduled to go in August.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh. Well, if it goes before the
Code Enforcement Board, it will never come back to the Board of
Commissioners.
MS. ARNOLD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And I have a concern
with that. I don't know if this is really offensive. It's been a couple
months since I've been out that way, and I didn't take --
MR. ACKERMAN: Commissioner Henning, the thing that
shocks me is, I know what the code is. But I'll tell you, when I found
out about the code, the code enforcement people were behind that
building for three weeks going back and forth every day.
If this was so -- and I'm sure Mrs. Arnold is telling the truth --
26
July 27, 2004
why wasn't this job stopped immediately? They were in front of the
building putting up the sign.
Mrs. -- what's the lady's name? Mrs. Crowley was standing right
there with me as it was being done. She approved the sign. She
improved (sic) the square flowers down below. Why didn't they -- I
thought they were on our team. Why didn't they stop that paint
immediately? Seventy-five gallons went on that building. Why wasn't
it stopped immediately?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, we can't guess at that, you know.
That's a -- but, you know, this is something -- the Code Enforcement
Board is going to hear it in August; is that the case?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes. I mean, I'd refer to the county attorney's
office with respect to, you know, how do you address something that's
in the code and exempt them from that?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sorry. Say that one more time.
MS. ARNOLD: Well, I guess the question that's being posed is,
rather than it go to the Code Enforcement Board, that the board should
consider it. And I guess I'm turning to the county attorney's office to
see what process we can go through.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. And I think you know the answer.
MR. ACKERMAN: Are the other buildings being taken under
jurisdiction also, all the other buildings that are wrong on the street
and the fence next door to me that's been up for two years, black?
MS. ACKERMAN: Wal-Mart's gray.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, we've got a couple issues here, and
one is, as been stated by prior commissioners when this comes up,
that, for instance, if there is one -- one potential error before the law
and the staff, or a police officer doesn't stop everybody who's
speeding, do they have the ability to stop the one person that's
speeding, is the analogy that's been used in the past.
The fact is, unless there's a situation that may be shown or not
27
July 27,2004
shown before the Code Enforcement Board of a discriminatory
practice -- which is actually not what the Code Enforcement Board is
supposed to be reviewing, but the application of the code to a
particular property or use of property before it -- the fact is, is the
matter mayor may not come to a, call it a successful conclusion on
behalf of Mr. Ackerman at the Code Enforcement Board.
If the Board of County Commissioners here were to determine
that this is a matter that should come back, it appears to me that what
the board would be saying is, as a -- as a matter, generally, that the
regulation, which has come into issue here, is a regulation which this
board wants to consider further before code enforcement applies it to
Mr. Ackerman's property or anyone else's property, and that ultimately
would require a change in the land development code.
But the staff, of course, applies the code as it exists at a particular
point in time, and as you have known for a period of years, more often
than not, operates on a complaint-based standard in the sense that they
do not have the staffing and the ability to be proactive throughout the
county in a uniform total way. And so that's the way they have
operated, and that's the way that has been accepted by the board
significantly for a long period of time.
In this particular case, if the board wishes this matter to come
back before the Board of County Commissioners, it's running a
parallel course to a viable action that is in -- with the Code
Enforcement Board. And it's this very type of situation that this board
has attempted to reduce or prevent by having a Code Enforcement
Board take over these responsibilities in the first place and make these
kinds of decisions. Which, again, we don't know what the decision is
going to be with the outcome.
We do know that the Code Enforcement Board is faced with the
standards that the Board of County Commissioners and the staff
created heretofore and the application or interpretation of those
standards by code enforcement staff.
28
July 27, 2004
Mr. Ackerman will have the opportunity with the Code
Enforcement Board, when and if that hearing comes up, to indicate,
argue, and illustrate all of the reasons why, in fact, this is
inappropriate or -- an inappropriate application of an otherwise
reasonable standard to his property or to indicate that the standard is
unreasonable itself.
Although the Code Enforcement Board is not in the -- is not in
the business of determining what is reasonable and unreasonable, but
taking the plate that's given it, meaning the regulations that exist, and
applying them to facts before it in a particular property.
Ultimately, if you're asked to bring this -- or direct to bring this
back before you, I think we'll find ourselves in a somewhat difficult
position of trying to determine -- well, if it comes back to you at the
next meeting, the Code Enforcement Board will already have acted
one way or another, so you would have an opportunity to weigh the
situation at that point in time.
You'd probably have the opportunity to give the staff direction in
regard to changes in the law. And ultimately, however, though, there
is no direct appeal to the Board of County Commissioners from the
Code Enforcement Board. Any appeal of the property owner is to the
court at that point in time.
We, the county, have gone to the court when we've felt that the
Code Enforcement Board has made a determination that's not in the
interest or appropriate to the county. We did not have the opportunity
to come back to you. An example being the guardhouse.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, David.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that we should let it go
through its normal process and let it go through the Code Enforcement
Board. And I think that my interpretation of earth tones are anything
that are light gray or light brown. That's earth tone colors. Not black.
And I think that that determination will be -- will be hashed out
29
July 27, 2004
when it goes before the Code Enforcement Board. I think that's where
it needs to go from here, then we'll determine what the next step is.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any other comments?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Fine. You'll be going before the
Code Enforcement Board. And just keep us apprised of that and --
MR. ACKERMAN: Okay. Appreciate it so much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. I have your
pictures in here if you'd like to take that back.
MR. ACKERMAN: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're going to need one set for
the records.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
Item #6C
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY HERMAN HAEGER TO
DISCUSS OPERATIONAL COSTS IMPOSED BY COLLIER
COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - PETITIONER
ABSENT
Okay. And we move on to public petition request by Herman
Haeger to discuss operational costs imposed by Collier County Code
Enforcement Board.
Is that person here?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Ok
MR. MUDD: Again, let's -- this is item 6C. This is a public
petition request by Herman Haeger to discuss operational costs
imposed by the Collier County Code Enforcement Board.
Is Mr. Haeger here?
(No response.)
30
July 27, 2004
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, Mr. Haeger is not here.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. Thank you very much.
Item #6D
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY MR. DAVID E. BRYANT TO
DISCUSS LEL Y COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT/SECURITY RESOLUTION - TO BE BROUGHT BACK
And the next petition is a request by David E. Bryant to discuss
Lely Community Development District's Security Resolution.
MR. BRYANT: Good morning, Madam Chairman, members of
the board. I'm David Bryant. I'm the district counsel for the Lely
Community Development District.
The reason this matter is on this morning is that it was
determined that after approximately 10 years, the Lely CDD had been
doing something it had never actually received authorization from the
county to do, which Chapter 190 requires.
As the resolution and the executive summary that I proposed sets
out, the CD D has contracted with various law enforcement agencies,
such as the sheriffs office and now the Florida Highway Patrol
through the State of Florida and with Wackenhut, to provide
additional security within the CDD.
The Wackenhut people basically just drive around and have a
presence in the area and mainly make sure people stay off the horses
at the entrance, which have ben vandalized over and over and over
agaIn.
In fact, the Stock Development Company just let a contract for
over $30,000 to try to repair some of the damage that has been done to
the horses by people crawling all over them, getting on them, and
wanting their picture made, or just sitting on the horses.
31
July 27, 2004
And according to the local Chamber of Commerce, the horses are
the number two tourist attraction in Collier County. The first being
the pier.
And the ambiance of the community and the attitude of the
residents and also Stock Development was to make those horses look
like they were supposed to with the lighting and the misting that they
originally had, but has not been able to be done lately because of the
damage to them. So that's one of the things that the Wackenhut
people do.
Florida Highway Patrol provides off-duty officers through a
contract to have a presence in the community and also to deter
speeding.
On Wildflower Way that comes out of the school, we have a
terrible speeding problem. But with the FHP presence, that has been
reduced.
So all we're doing is asking the board to authorize the CDD to do
something it's been doing for 10 years that had made the residents of
the CDD very happy, caused no problems, solved problems, and is
funded totally from CDD funds and no funds from the county. And
all the residents of the CDD want to do is do it the right way.
Why it was never asked for 10 years ago, I can't tell you, other
than it was just done and it's been done and been done, and nobody
has ever questioned it. But now that we have a new board of
supervisors who are all residents, they said, let's do this the right way,
go get the approval for something we've been doing, and there will be
no controversy. That was what we thought.
And we thought that everybody would be in agreement that this
is something that the residents fund, take care of their own problems,
and help alleviate some of the problems for the sheriffs office in
coverage Issues.
So that's why we're here. And we'd request that this matter come
back. We thought we could go on the consent agenda originally
32
July 27,2004
because we thought it would be totally noncontroversial.
Mr. Weigel had some questions about it. He and I met. He was
kind enough to discuss it with me. I think we have resolved those.
And by the time we come back to the board, that mat -- his concerns
will be totally resolved.
So I would respectfully request this matter be put on the agenda
at whatever's convenient for the board to look at the resolution and
hopefully approve it for residents of the CDD.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The only concern, I think there was
some members of staff that were concerned that this might be the start
of another Foxfire, and so I think that's why it was not put on the
consent agenda. So we want to get a clarification.
If you could be a little more -- maybe a little more clear in
exactly what your interpretation is of making sure that there's no
vandalism on the horses. I hope this doesn't mean that there would be
a gatehouse there or anything of this nature, because I believe those
roads there belong to the county. So if you could enlighten us just a
little bit on that.
MR. BRYANT: Thank you, Commissioner Halas. That's exactly
right. No, there's no gatehouse, no barriers. We want the public to
have free and unfettered access. And I can appreciate the gatehouse
issue in your area. I represented the county in that matter when I was
in the county attorney's office, and I appreciate the concerns there.
The CDD understands that the roads are public, most of them.
There are some private roads in the area, and those have been gated by
the developer, and they've never been under county authorization or
maintenance requirements.
But as far as the main thoroughfares and transportation arteries
through the community, those are county roads, and no, there's going
to be no gatehouse, no barbed wire, no Constantino wire, no nothing.
It's just a matter of having the presence of the additional security for
33
July 27, 2004
the residents in the area.
Because one of the problems that we've had in the area have been
a lot of burglaries of construction sites, which is a common problem
throughout the community. But also in an area where you're having a
lot of building, it has been an issue there, and that's another reason that
the developer has been very responsive and supportive of this matter
also.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I had one other question and
that pertains to, would we give you the authority or we give the CCD
(sic) there the authority whereby they could stop people that were
going through that area, or would that be mandated by the sheriffs
department, the roads that would be open to the county?
MR. BRYANT: No, sir. We don't stop anybody.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. BRYANT: The only people that are stopped are ones that
the Florida Highway Patrol has determined either are violating the law
through some type of criminal statute or there's a traffic enforcement
matter. That's the only people that get stopped.
As far as unfettered access, there's total unfettered access in that
area. In fact, one of the problems we've had in -- and Commissioner
Fiala's been kind enough to facilitate some of our concerns -- is that
we have had a lot of dump truck traffic through the main arteries in the
community by people cutting through from 951 over to 41, especially
when the intersection was under construction at 41 and 951, but that
has been alleviated somewhat because of the improvement to the
intersection. But no, there's no problem with anybody being stopped,
except those people that are breaking the law.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioners, I think that I would like
to just bring this back and put it on a regular agenda, if that would be
all right with you, and we can move on to the next item.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Approve of that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would that be okay?
34
July 27,2004
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- it seems to me you don't
-- it appears to me you don't have to ask the Board of Commissioner's
approval to provide a security system in the CDD.
MR. BRYANT: I can appreciate that, Commissioner Henning,
and that's what the board thought, but Chapter 190 specifically says --
and you can ask Mr. Weigel because he and I have discussed this. If
we want to do what we've been doing for 10 years, we should have
received the authorization from the board before we did it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're out of compliance.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So we -- everybody's in agreement
to bring it back?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Bryant. Sorry to move it
on but--
,
MR. BRYANT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- we're trying to move the meeting along.
MR. BRYANT: Thank you. I appreciate it.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair? Madam Chair, if I can interject
real quick. We'll work with Mr. Bryant to make sure that the
190.012(2)(D) section has some caveats in it so that it doesn't -- the
board doesn't give him the unfettered right to gate that community.
Because the way the resolution reads, it basically delegates the
CDD the entire right to that particular section. And I read, that section
says, security, including but not limited to guardhouses, fences, and
gates, electronic intrusion detection systems and patrol cars when
authorized by proper government agencies, except the district may not
exercise any police powers, and then it goes on.
So we just want to make sure that we've got some clarity in the
resolution that basically says that it can't turn out to be a gated
community because of that delegation of right to the CDD. And we'll
get that squared away, ma'am.
35
July 27, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
MR. BRYANT: And I appreciate Mr. Mudd's comments. And
there's never been a desire to gate that area. And if he had discussed
that with me, I'd be more than glad to assuage his fears of that,
because that has never been the desire of the community to gate those
roads that are open to the public.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much, Mr. Bryant. We'll
see you at a meeting soon, right? Sometime in September?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. Let's try to do it the 28th instead of
the 14th.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's a good idea.
MR. BRYANT: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you very much.
Item #7 A
RESOLUTION 2004-239 - V A-2004-AR-5798, RICHARD
RUNDLE, REPRESENTING JIM AND CONNIE ADAMS,
REQUESTING TWO VARIANCES FROM PUD ORDINANCE 82-
80, IMPERIAL WEST PUD FOR A PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE: A 1.8 FOOT VARIANCE FROM
THE REQUIRED 20 FEET SEPARATION BETWEEN PRINCIPLE
STRUCTURES OR ONE HALF (1/2) THE SUM OF THE HEIGHTS
OF THE ADJACENT STRUCTURES, WHICH EVER IS
GREATER, TO 18.2 FEET ON THE EAST SIDE OF LOT 46 PARK
PLACE WEST AND A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE
REQUIRED 20 FOOT SEPARATION TO 16 FEET ON THE WEST
SIDE OF LOT 46. THE PROPERTY TO BE CONSIDERED FOR
THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED AT 1155 IMPERIAL DRIVE,
FURTHER DESCRIBED AS THE LOT 46, PARK PLACE WEST,
IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,
36
July 27,2004
Now we move on to the Board of Zoning Appeals, item number
7. With this item, all participants must be sworn in and ex parte
disclosed.
Could we swear in anybody who wishes to speak on this item,
7A?
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioners, starting with
Commissioner Halas, do you have any ex parte to disclose?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: On 7 A, zoning, I have no
disclosures.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have none either.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Nor do 1. So we can move on.
Let's see. Will staff be presenting first?
MR. ADAMS: Okay. Good morning, Commissioners. My
name is Jim Adams. This is concerning a variance that we're
petitioning the commission for.
My wife and I own Lot 46 in Park Place West up in North
Naples. We were denied a permit due to the lack of 20 feet between
the homes.
When we purchased the lot and when we designed the home for
the lot, which is a detached villa under 1,700 square feet, we set it up
so that there would be 10 feet between the edge of the home and the
property line.
The permit was denied because the -- there was not 20 feet
between the homes. Lot 47 was only six feet from their line to their
home, so we kind of got squeezed in the middle.
We're seeking relief from this -- from the -- from the
commission. It has been approved through the staff. It was approved
37
July 27,2004
on July 15th from the Collier County commission, planning, and I am
asking you to grant us relief so that we can build a home that will
match with the integrity of the neighborhood.
It's a -- like I say, we're just -- we're just squeezed there because
the home on Lot 47 was only six feet from their lot line to their home.
We are in accordance with the architectural review board --
architectural review of Park Place West which does state that it's 20
feet from other buildings or 10 feet from each side, and do maintain
that.
On the east side we are asking to put a bay window in, which
each of the other lots have the same. And like I said, it has been
approved by the architectural review board of Park Place West, from
the staff and from the Planning Commission.
So briefly -- I know you want to move along -- but I would ask if
there's any questions, I'd sure like to answer them, and I'd just ask for
your relief.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Staff?
MR. DeRUNTZ: For the record, my name is Mike DeRuntz. I'm
the principal planner with the Zoning and Land Development Review
Department.
This property is located in Imperial Place. There was -- this area
was approved as a PUD initially in 1982 with multi-family and cluster
housing as a permitted use. In 1987, that PUD was amended to add
group and zero lot line homes.
The final plat for Imperial Place was approved in '98 (sic), then
amended to identify it as Park Place West in 1990.
In 1995, the -- a subdivision master plan was approved, and
single-family homes were being developed. And as you can see on
the illustrator, that the homes along the southern part of Park Place
West is -- these homes were being developed and they were being
developed with a 20- foot separation between the buildings.
And as these were built, they became shifted from the west to the
38
July 27,2004
east so that they weren't centered on the property, being 10 feet on
each side of the property line. And as such, these homes were being
shifted to the east, and Lot 46 is -- was undeveloped, and the Adams
are proposing to build a home on it.
In the meantime, the houses on 45 and 44 were built, and they
were sitting more or less centered on their property. So a lot -- the end
result is that Lot 46 is being pinched and put -- for them to be able to
put the standard home as compared with the other houses, he's left to
come before -- and ask for a variance.
He's 16 feet on the west side of his property between the two
structures, and 18.2 feet on the east side between the two -- the
existing residential structure and his proposed structure.
The Planning Commission has reviewed this and it recommended
approval for the proposed variances on the west side and east side of
the property line. Vote was 4-1.
The concern was, by the dissenting vote, about balancing this out
more to the distance between the two structures -- or structures on
both sides. That would require another petition and so forth. We just
can't make those changes at the board --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So staffs recommendation is?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Staffs recommendation is that there is -- for
approval. We believe that the existing separation provides enough
distance between the structures for light, area, and safety.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And CCPC agreed with that, correct?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes -- yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is the home presently built?
MR. DeRUNTZ: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What would be the square footage
difference if you downsized the home so that the home would fit the
lot and we wouldn't have to worry about the variances?
MR. DeRUNTZ: The existing homes in that area are aroundh
39
July 27, 2004
2,600 square feet. To eliminate the bay and to reduce the four foot on
the one side, entire length of the building, you would be eliminating
around 600 square feet. And so this house, it would make it
significantly narrower than the other homes and significantly less than
the other homes in the area.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But in the stipulation, your
recommendation, you're stating that if the residential dwelling
structure is destroyed for any reason or to the extent equal to or greater
than 50 percent of the actual replacement cost of the structure at the
time of its destruction, all reconstruction of the accessory structures
must conform to the provisions of the land development code.
Why don't we just do it now? It's not built. Let's get it in
compliance.
MR. DeRUNTZ: The Planning Commission recommended that
that condition not be incorporated into the resolution.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Because they felt that that would be undue
hardship and --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There's no hardship.
MR. ADAMS: Commissioner Halas? The home that we are
planning to put up is 1,666 square feet. By knocking it down, or by
moving it or reducing it, it would bring us well -- I mean, it would
probably bring us down 12- or 1,300 square feet, and the minimum is
1,600 feet for that area. It totally meets the integrity of the community
and it still --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But why would we have the
stipulation saying that if the structure was damaged that it'd have to be
-- it would have to be brought back into compliance of the existing
land development code? I don't understand it. It's --
MR. DeRUNTZ: That condition was stricken. What's in the
resolution now --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's right in my material here.
40
July 27, 2004
MR. DeRUNTZ: If it's in the resolution, it should not be in there.
The Planning Commission recommended that -- the only condition
was the specific of the variance requested.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How did we get into this
predicament to start with?
MR. DeRUNTZ: The property owner wanted to build a home on
the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no, no. I mean, if we -- if the
-- if it's plotted accordingly where we had 20 feet on each side and we
start at one end and somebody decided to -- the developer decided --
some body's got to be held accountable here.
And then what do you do on the other end? We ended up with
putting the homes symmetrically placed on the piece of property; is
that correct? One end that was offset, the other end it was
symmetrical. Then we end up with one piece of property in the
center, and now we've got a dilemma, because something wasn't
followed, and I don't understand why we have these problems.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Well, ideally, they would have followed the
master plan to show the 20- foot separation between each of the
structures. And at -- at some point when the homes on Lot 44 and 45
were built, they centered the houses on the lots and not had those
shifted.
They met the setback requirements or separation requirements
between those structures, but it caused this bind on Lot 46 now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But doesn't the county have any
control over, when they set the parameters of this PUD, that the
houses should be centered on this piece of property so that you don't
run into a conflict like this?
MS. MURRAY: Good morning. Susan Murray, director.
Part of the problem with the way the regulations are structured in
this PUD, Commissioner, is that it calls for a building separation
distance. It doesn't call for a distance between property lines.
41
July 27,2004
So when you end up getting undeveloped lots or lots developed
one piecemeal at a time, there's nothing to ensure that the separation is
maintained between buildings when there's no building on the other
side.
Ideally, yes, you should have -- and I hear what you're saying.
Ideally it -- the regulation probably should have stated 10 feet side
yard setback to maintain the 20 feet, but there's nothing to -- once one
house was approved in error, then it started a domino effect down the
road.
The second part of your question I wanted to answer was the
stipulation with respect to the buildback, and that is a pretty standard
stipulation that we keep in all our variances; however, I think in this
case there really are going to be some practical difficulties if we
attempt to apply that stipulation.
And I recognize that was in your package, and it should not have
been, and the Planning Commission also recognized that this would
just not be an appropriate stipulation in this case due to the practical
difficulties of building on the lot.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But we're still ending up where we
have to have two variances to accomplish the task of building this
house. There's got to be two variances on this thing, one is four foot
and one is, what, 1.8 foot?
MR. ADAMS: That was for a bay window.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. A couple of
questions, if I may. Have any of the neighbors raised any objection to
this?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. The neighbor on Lot 47, Mr. Cocklin,
has contacted me by phone. He lives -- and also had sent me
correspondence, and that's included in the staff report. The--
objecting to the variance request. He would like to see the 20-foot
separation remain between structures. The -- that's the only --
42
July 27, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is this the gentleman that has
the house closer to the property line?
MR. ADAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So in other words, he should
have had a variance to begin with and he doesn't, but he wants his
neighbor to have it?
MR. ADAMS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm a little confused. So I can
understand why his objection would exist. Is there something in the
general neighborhood where a number of people have spoken up in
opposition to this?
MR. DeRUNTZ: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Just a couple more
points.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is gOIng to requIre a
supermajority, four votes, right?
MR. WEIGEL: No, no.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And just about everything that
has happened on this agenda that requires a supermajority has been
pulled for the very reason there's only four commissioners sitting up
here.
MR. DeRUNTZ: It's three votes, sir.
MR. MUDD: Three votes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Three votes?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I make a motion for
approval.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
43
July 27, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So we have that as a 3-1. You are
approved.
You know, I really agree with this, because I feel that he needs to
be a part of the neighborhood. He can't look odd in the rest of the
neighborhood. I don't think the neighbors would be happy to see
something that is -- that is smaller.
But we'll move on to the next one. Oh--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- I didn't close the public hearing. I'm so
sorry .
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We'll take the vote over.
MR. WEIGEL: That's actually -- that's actually not what I was
calling about. You've effectively closed the hearing by taking the
vote, so you don't need to go back at that.
But for clarification of the vote taken, it approves the variance,
but does it also include removing the buildback restriction that was
there?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: I want to make sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To remove it, right.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I want to say the reason I feel for
you, I understand where you're coming from, sir, but we've been
running into this constantly where we always have to, after the fact,
but in this case it's not after the fact, but we're always involved with
the variances.
44
.....~._"...
July 27, 2004
And I'm hoping that some day we can get everything straightened
around so that we don't end up with four-foot variances or anything
any greater than that. We're running into -- in this case you have to
have two variances in order to accomplish whatever you need to do on
this piece of property. And I'm hoping that in the future that staff has
a closer eye on what's going on in regards to building here in Collier
County.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. ADAMS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, sir.
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2004-53 ESTABLISHING THE QUARRY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (CDD) PURSUANT
Now we move on to the advertised public hearings. I'll try and
remember to close the public hearing after each one of these things.
MR. MUDD: This is 8A. This is a companion item to 10J. This
item is continued from the June 22nd, 2004, public hearing to consider
adoption of an ordinance establishing the quarry community
development district, CDD, pursuant to section 190.005, Florida
Statutes.
Mr. Stan Litsinger will present.
MR. LITSINGER: Good mornIng, Madam Chairman,
Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Anybody have any questions?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it.
45
July 27, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed? Aye.
Pardon me? Oh, and we have to close the public hearing.
Next time if anybody wants to jump in, first let's close the public
hearing so that then we can vote on this legitimately.
Okay, fine. And after the fact, I'm closing the public hearing.
Did we have speakers or anything on this item?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am. This was 8A, right?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
Thank you very much. So that's a 3-1.
MR. LITSINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Donna Fiala opposed. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, the next item is 8B, but that will be heard
at three p.m., Time certain.
Item #8C
PETITION PUDZ-2003-AR-4250: GOLDEN GATE FIRE
CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT AND WATERWAYS JOINT
VENTURE IV, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM THE RURAL
AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT, TO ALLOW
DEVELOPMENT OF A FIRE STATION WITH A 135-FOOT HIGH
COMMUNICATION TOWER AND A 75-FOOT HIGH TRAINING
FACILITY, AND SIXTEEN (16) SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED
DWELLINGS (INCLUDING TOWNHOUSES INTENDED FOR
FEE SIMPLE CONVEYANCE INCLUDING THE PLATTED LOT
ASSOCIATED WITH THE RESIDENCE) AND CUSTOMARY
ACCESSORY USES. PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE WEST
SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (C.R. 951), APPROXIMATELY
46
-,--
July 27, 2004
340 FEET NORTH OF WOLFE ROAD, IN SECTION 34,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 9.38 _ + ACRES. - MOTION TO
So the next item is 8C. The petitioner has requested that this
item be continued indefinitely.
That brings us to 8D, which is a -- let me ask a question of the
county attorney's office real quick.
David, under 8C, do we need a vote from the board because the
petitioner wants to continue this indefinitely? Because it was
scheduled to be continued for today and advertised.
MR. WEIGEL: Jim, refresh me. Was that on part of the agenda
comment that you had at the beginning of the meeting?
MR. MUDD: I don't believe so. I don't -- it basically said that __
no, it wasn't.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Then the board would need to take a --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, motion--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
MR. WEIGEL: -- motion to continue of that or--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve, to continue
MR. MUDD: To continue indefinitely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- indefinitely.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a motion to approve, to continue
indefinitely by Commissioner Henning and a second by --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Halas.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
47
July 27, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that's item 8C, by the way.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
Item #8D
RESOLUTION 2004-240 APPLYING THE ANNUAL MID-CYCLE
INDEXING ADJUSTMENTS TO AMEND THE PARKS AND
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE,
WHICH IS SCHEDULE THREE OF APPENDIX A OF CHAPTER
74 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES (COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT
FEE ORDINANCE NO. 2001-13, AS AMENDED) PROVIDING
That brings us to 8D, which is a recommendation for the
adoption of a resolution applying the annual mid-cycle indexing
adjustments to amend the parks and rec. 's facility impact fee rate
schedule, which is Schedule 3 of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the
Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, which is also the
Collier -- which we call the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee
Ordinance number 2001-13, as amended, providing for an effective
date of August 2, 2004.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
MR. MUDD: Amy Patterson will present.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning, and a second by Commissioner Coletta, but
first I must close the public hearing.
48
_.-"
July 27,2004
So we have no speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. The public hearing is closed then.
Again, I have a motion to approve by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Coletta.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So that is a 3-0 to the positive.
MS. PATTERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Item #8E
ORDINANCE 2004-54 AMENDING THE COUNTY'S RECENTLY
RECODIFIED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC aka UDC) TO
CORRECT SCRIVENER'S ERRORS PRIOR TO FINAL
PUBLICATION AND TO AMEND EXISTING AND STILL
EFFECTIVE LDC PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO POLITICAL
SIGNS AND CHARITABLE SOLICITATIONS IN ROAD RIGHTS
=Û.F - WAY - A DO.EIED
MR. MUDD: Next item is 8E, and this is -- documents for this
item are available for review in the zoning and land review
department, and they're also out on the desk and in the BCC office.
It's a recommendation to approve an ordinance amending the county's
recently recodified land development code, LDC, a/kla the unified
development code, to correct a scrivener's error prior to final
publication and to amend existing and still effective LDC provisions
49
---
July 27, 2004
pertaInIng to political signs and charitable solicitations in road
right-of-way.
And Mr. Patrick White will present.
MR. WHITE: Good morning, Commissioners. Assistant county
attorney, Patrick White.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Patrick, may I first ask you, do -- is this
for a four -- do we need a supermajority on this or a simple majority?
MR. WHITE: There are provisions within here that do pertain to
the uses, and if you're going to consider them as a package with one
motion and vote, then you do need a supermajority.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. Thank you.
PATRICK WHITE: Assistant county attorney, Patrick White.
And I've reviewed the Affidavit of Publication for this hearing today
and found that it's legally sufficient. I will separately provided it to
our record-keeping folks for their record-keeping.
The matter that you have for your consideration today,
Commissioners, in part, flowed from your continuation from the June
22nd meeting, and that was the political sign piece.
My understanding is that you've all been contacted by Mr.
Carpenter from the Supervisor of Elections and had an opportunity to
discuss whatever issues you may have had with that.
And if there are none, we'll move on to the second piece of this,
which is the other matter that you directed at your June 22nd meeting,
that pertaining to charitable solicitations. You will have a subsequent
item in your agenda today that will be the actual operative fix for that.
This was just a slight change needed in the LDC to accommodate that
anticipated change.
And then lastly, the part that you have in this ordinance are those
things that are the scrivener's error changes that we told you about
June 22nd, and even prior to that, that we recognized were going to be
coming forward as we started to utilize and implement the UDC.
So there are a limited number of minor changes in that regard in
50
July 27, 2004
this ordinance. And, in fact, in that continuing process, there are a
couple of matters that came to our attention after we'd originally sent
this through as part of the novice agenda package, and that's why you
have a hard copy that should have red text in it in a few places.
If you have any questions about any of those, I'll be happy to
address them. The most substantive of them is probably with respect
to section 8, the back of the ordinance pertains to a finding of fact, and
that, in fact, is intended to create an even thicker fire wall with respect
to concerns about, perhaps, Bert Harris or other effective dates, that
were in the existing -- that are in the existing LDC, and that we want
to preserve and maintain without them being changed by the
readoption and recodification of the land development code.
So if there are no issues about that somewhat arcane legal point,
I'd be happy to address any other concerns you may have, if I may.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
MR. WHITE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may clarify everything.
These suggestions that are coming forward in this align themselves
with the elections office?
MR. WHITE: Yes, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So I -- because I have
great concerns over the way the law is presently written in the fairness
of it for upcoming residents that may wish to run for public office.
MR. WHITE: I believe Mr. Carpenter's here, and if you want to
hear it from him, certainly we can ask him to come forward. But my
understanding --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: He's a registered speaker, so we could
hear from him now, if that's okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That'd be great.
MR. WHITE: Okay. If you have no other questions, I'll step
aside. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Registered speakers?
51
July 27, 2004
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. One -- we have one, David
Carpenter.
MR. CARPENTER: The solution to the problem that we brought
forth after the 2002 elections, the proposed solution by Patrick White
and by code enforcement -- agreed to by code enforcement, meet our
objections to the ordinance as it exists today completely. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Coletta, a second by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a 4-0 on that. Thank you very
much.
MR. CARPENTER: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Carpenter.
MR. MUDD: The next item, Commissioner, is --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I didn't close the public hearing again.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You just did by the vote.
Item #8F
ORDINANCE 2004-55 AMENDING THE COUNTY'S CODE OF
LA WS AND ORDINANCES (CODE OR CODE OF LAWS) TO
RELOCATE EXISTING LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC)
52
......--...-----
July 27, 2004
PROVISIONS INTO THE CODE OF LAWS, TO AMEND
EXISTING CODE OF LAWS PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO
THE SHIP PROGRAM, AND TO DELETE DUPLICATIVE CODE
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 8F. Documents
for this item are available for review in the Zoning and Land Review
Department, also out at the front desk and in the Board of County
Commissioners' offices.
This is a recommendation to approve an ordinance amending the
county's Code of Law and Ordinances, code or code of laws, to
relocate existing land development code provisions into the code of
laws, to amend existing code of laws provisions pertaining to the SHIP
Program and to delete duplicative code provisions no longer required.
And Mr. Patrick White will present.
MR. WHITE: Again, assistant county attorney, Patrick White.
Commissioners, this is part of the promised set of revisions
brought forward and initiated by the unified land development code,
the UDC changes.
The matters largely before you are ones that were not anticipated
to be carried forward into the UDC but are required, instead, to still
exist as part of the regulatory fabric, and we found them very
comfortable in well fitting homes in the existing Code of Laws and
Ordinances.
It is a rather thick set of provisions in terms of the ordinance size,
but overall, there are no changes to any of those provisions. They are
simply a relocation of them into a different codification, that being the
code of laws.
The other --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
MR. WHITE: I'm sorry. The other two pieces, very quickly.
We had some parallel provisions in Chapter 106 that duplicated those
53
---~-
July 27, 2004
that otherwise existed with respect to adequate public facilities in what
is now division 3.15 . We simply struck through and eliminated those.
And lastly, we brought forward some changes requested by
financial administration and housing, for essentially housekeeping
purposes, to bring current regulations up to date with present practice,
and those are the changes in Chapter 114.
I think that's pretty much everything that I'd like to share with
you. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. White?
MR. WHITE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's no changes to that; this
is strictly a reorganization?
MR. WHITE: Yes. We effectively--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have to close the public hearing first.
Do we have any speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Coletta.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
MR. WHITE: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's a 4-0. Thank you.
54
--
July 27, 2004
Let's see. 8F. We have a -- 8G? No, that's withdrawn.
Looks like we move on to -
Item #8G
PETITION SNR-2003-AR-4982, BILL L. NEAL, REPRESENTING
BA YSHORE BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL SPECIAL
TAXING UNIT, REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE
FROM BAYSHORE DRIVE TO BOTANICAL GARDEN
PARKWAY, LOCATED IN SECTIONS 11,14,23 & 26,
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'm going to -- I'm going to hold on
8G as far as -- just to be on the safe side -- I can't tell you if this was
advertised, okay? If it was advertised -- I don't think it was, but --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 8G is the one that was withdrawn, right?
MR. MUDD: No, that's the one that the petitioner requested it be
continue indefinitely. I'd like to get a motion just to be safe.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to continue to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner
Henning --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to continue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- to continue indefinitely, and a second
by Commissioner Coletta.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
55
----_._",.._->.,
July 27, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 4-0.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that bring us to the Board of
County Commissioners, and it's number 9A, and it's a discussion
regarding the status report for the Collier County Citizens Corps, and
this was brought --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sorry. Mr. Mudd, I'm going to call a
10-minute break and give our stenographer a few minutes to move her
little fingers. Thank you.
(A brief recess was taken.)
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, you have a hot mike. Ladies and
gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: The meeting is back in order.
Item #9A
STATUS REPORT FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY CITIZENS
CORPS. - TO BE BROUGHT BACK AND PLACED ON A
EllTIlRE..RCC A (TEND A
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, our next item is the Board of
County Commissioners, and we start with item number 9A, and that's
a discussion regarding status report for the Collier County Citizens
Corps, and that was requested to be put on the agenda by
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I understand that you have
an interim -- or a report coming up in about another --
MR. MUDD: Yes. Commissioner, I'd ask if -- the questions are
basically itemized in your agenda, and there's some good questions.
And I've got Dan Summers and crew working on those particular -- on
those particular answers.
I'd like to be able to come back to the board in the next 60 to 90
days with a report to answer those questions for you, so --
56
July 27, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That satisfies my needs, and
also too, the research that's been made available since then has
answered a lot of questions.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I thank you for your cooperation
and for staffs help on this.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So we'll be bringing that back at a future
meeting?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'm going to bring you a report that
basically answers those questions. And once you get the report, if you
need to bring it back on an agenda, we'll be glad to do that. But I'll
give you the report first so that you've got all the answers and that
satisfies your particular --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Then, Commissioner Coletta, what I'll ask
you to do is, if -- you know, we'll all read it, and if you feel that you
want to bring it back, I'll make that your responsibility. Otherwise --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- it will have answered the questions. Is
that okay with you?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner
Fiala.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You're welcome.
Do we need to do anything about voting to --
MR. MUDD: (Shakes head.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. We're set with that, okay.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2004-241 APPOINTMENT OF JOSEPH BOGGS,
KATHLEEN GARREN, AND CELIA M. FELLOWS TO THE
COMMUNITY CHARACTER/SMART GROWTH ADVISORY
COM.MIIIEF - A DO.EIED
57
-~.....<"-~~---,_.-
July 27, 2004
We go on to 9B.
MR. MUDD: And that's appointment of members to the
Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion to approve the three --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion to approve the
three people that were recommended right here on our summary, and a
second by Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Item #9C
DISCUSSION REGARDING LAND DEVELOPMENT
RESTRICTIONS ON PLANTATION ISLAND - MOTION TO
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We go on to 9C.
MR. MUDD: 9C is a discussion regarding. land development
restrictions in Plantation Island. And that was also asked to be put on
the agenda by Commissioner Coletta.
Mr. Schmitt will come to the podium to answer any questions
that you may have, sir -- or ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Hard to tell the difference sometimes.
Yes?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just to cut right to the chase.
58
July 27,2004
We have three recommendations here, Mr. Schmitt. What is your
recommendation?
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, administrator of
Community Development/Environmental Services.
This is a complicated issue. There was a -- for lack of a better
term, I guess a briefing paper, a white paper that was prepared by Bill
Lorenz, my environmental services director, describing the issues out
at Plantation Island.
We have three recommendations here to deal with this. Shown
on your visualizer, at least, is a computer projection of the aerial for
that area.
There are two code cases out there. And if I could make a point
to -- just so you know where the properties are. And I got the cross
hairs. There's one property right where I -- if you can see the cross
hairs right there, and the other property is over here where there are
code cases where there are mangroves cleared without the proper
permits.
This was an issue raised by Commissioner Coletta to see what we
could do about dealing with allowing for development out there.
There are two amendments that I would propose. One is -- or
two courses of action. We could probably run them concurrently.
One is to have Plantation Island removed from the area of critical state
concern.
Marjorie Student, the assistant county attorney, is here with me,
as well as Barbara Burgeson, from the Environmental Services staff, if
you have any specific questions.
But in a nutshell, that will take a long time. It has to go to the
state, it has to go through the legislature, and it is a very long and
tedious process, probably a bit lethargic, I guess, from the standpoint,
how we would have to go about that.
But the second one we can pursue with GMP and LDC
amendments and go through the variance process again. We're
59
_._~-~
July 27, 2004
constricted by the regulations that are right in our LDC in regards to
the area of critical state concern, special treatment zoning that exists in
that area.
So we would really have to do some extensive evaluation and
analysis and bring it back to the board for your consideration.
I think from a legal perspective, if I could turn to Marjorie, and at
least she could give you at least a thumbnail of the pitfalls in those
two courses of action.
If you wanted us to do them concurrently, I think we could do
that. Of course, we're spending county staff time and effort on solving
an issue for what I would say is a few residents. But if that's what you
wish, we can do that.
Marjorie?
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant
county attorney. Just a little bit of history -- and I'll try to be brief --
so you can understand why we are where we are today.
Back in the '70s, the state established some areas of critical state
concern throughout the State of Florida by statute, and the Big
Cypress area is one of those. The Department of Community Affairs
also promulgated regulations that would govern any development in
that area.
Those regulations were required to be placed in our
comprehensive plan and our land development regulations by state
statute.
So before I came here, certainly, I would say probably the first
compo plan that I'm aware of that we had in the early '80s -- I know
that those provisions were in that compo plan and have always been in
the land development regulations since I have been here.
So we have some lots in Plantation, which is an old unrecorded
subdivision -- never recorded subdivision, went through our formal
platting procedures. So that's why they're not grandfathered under
state law from these regulations.
60
July 27, 2004
But in any event, probably because of the development pressure
in the county, there's some lots there that have mangroves on the lots,
and the regulation says there will be no destruction or alteration of
mangroves.
So if a lot's totally covered by mangroves, that means the person
cannot use the lot for anything, and that can result in a taking of a
property .
So we were looking at some alternatives to try to avoid that
situation. And one of which, there's a regulation by DCA that would
allow us to do variances from these regulations if certain criteria were
met where there wouldn't be an adverse impact on the estuarine water
body and things of that nature, that we could put in the compo plan and
our land development regulations. That's probably the quickest option.
The other option would be to approach our deleg -- our
legislative delegation and work with the Department of Community
Affairs to have just the Plantation Island area carved out of the Big
Cypress area so those regulations wouldn't apply. That would
probably take some time, and there'd be some political maneuverings
associated with that.
And the third option would be to purchase those lots that are not
developable because of the mangrove situation. That would require
some further research on staffs part as to the approximate valuation of
those lots, and also look at each one to see which ones could and could
not be utilized.
So that is basically how we got here and the options that we see
to solve the problem.
MR. SCHMITT: If I could also direct, on the visualizer, there's
kind of an up-close and little bit closer view of the areas we're talking
about in Plantation Island. And you can see, even if homes were
allowed to be built on that, given the mangroves and the canals that
are shown there, it's going to be a considerable amount of money that
will be expended by the homeowners out there, even to open up -- that
61
July 27, 2004
up for boat traffic, because they would have to remove the kind of
mangroves and other work that would have to be done.
So many of these lots -- if you go back into the property
appraiser's office, some of these lots were only $2,500 or so. But I
clicked on several of them in this area, and there are some now that
sold recently for almost $40,000. And so it's kind of a speculation and
land grab type of situation out there.
But whether or not it's being disclosed as to the prohibitions and
the limitations for development, I don't know. I've not gone into that,
but it certainly should be as part of the real estate transfer that should
be disclosed. But these properties are designated in the ST zoning,
special treatment zoning.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got some concerns on this,
because if people are buying this, it's like buying swampland, and they
ought to know what they're buying and whether they can build on this
or not.
And if this -- if the transactions have recently been taking place
in regards to buying these lots, this is mangroves, this is areas of
wetland, this is an area of concern. And I just think that if we open up
this area, that we're opening up Pandora's box, and then you're going
to set a precedence, and then we're going to have a problem
throughout the rest of the county. And so that's -- I feel that maybe
the best solution here is to see what the option is of buying this
property up so that we don't end up destroying this area.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Thank you for the
opportunity .
Generally, Commissioner Halas, you'd be totally right. We have
some circumstances here that are quite a bit different, and there are
some very basic property rights. One, this has been around since day
one, and it precedes everything that takes place that didn't get
62
July 27,2004
grandfathered in, as you heard earlier.
Two, the mangroves exist there because the canals were put in.
If the canals were never put in and dug, those mangroves wouldn't be
growing there. And if you take a look at the master map, the
mangroves that we're talking about and making any kind of mends to,
are not against the main canal, which would be the tributary feeding it.
It would be minimal impact on the environment if this happened,
and it should happen no place else, because this is a very unique
situation.
As far as buying the property, how -- what right do you -- we
have as a commission or as a government authority to go in and tell
somebody, well, you purchased your property 20 years ago and you
paid $2,000, and that's what we're going to give you for it. Good luck,
Charlie, good-bye.
All our homes, all our properties have increased in value, in some
cases, four- or fivefold over the past 10 years. Why should these
people be any different as far as compensation goes?
See, you're opening a Pandora's box. What's fair value on this
property at this point in time? To say that you're going to pay them
what they originally paid for it would be totally ludicrous and it'd be
unfair.
I'm very concerned about the fact that this situation got to the
point it is today. This is something that has been a great concern.
And by the way, the federal government issues permits for clearing
these mangroves and has done it once now, and they could do it again.
It was maybe possibly an oversight, but they've seen no problem with
it, and that's even with the state of special concern that's there.
It's our own local ordinances that are the problem. And we've got
to remember, we put these ordinances in place for a reason, and that
was to protect the environment.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Coletta, can I ask
you then --
63
July 27,2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- this must be very low area
terrain, because even if you had canals there, the only time you'd have
-- the mangroves would grow would be along the edge of the canal.
Here they're growing within the land, so that tells me that that whole
area is very, very low.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. The whole
coastal area is.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So -- the whole coastal area,
exactly.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But then again, too, you have a
minimal impact here because of the way the mangroves are situated so
far from the coastal area.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I support Commissioner Coletta
in his endeavor for these property owners to build the American
Dream.
So I'll make a motion, if it's appropriate with Commissioner
Coletta, to approve staffs recommendation to bring back to the Board
of Commissioners for approval.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's for the two
recommendations.
MR. MUDD: And staffs recommendations -- if I -- if I took
them down right was, number one, get state to remove the stipulation
that the area's a critical state concern; and number two is to come back
with GMP and LDC amendments in order to deal with these particular
properties?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the third one is to buy the
property .
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I don't--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But he's just saying the two. Is that
correct, Commissioner Henning?
64
July 27, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If it's appropriate for
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That would be, thank you. And
I second your motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So let me make sure that we have
the motion correct, okay? Do you want to say it once more or shall I
have Comm -- shall I have Jim Mudd read us back the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. Mudd, could you read us back the
motion?
MR. MUDD: Mr. Schmitt basically recommended, based on
Commissioner Coletta's question, two courses of action, two things
that need to transpire, and I think he said they need to transpire
simultaneousl y.
MR. SCHMITT: If I could correct. But they don't have to -- we
don't have to do both, but I'm recommending we pursue both, just --
they're not -- they're mutually exclusive alternatives, but they can be
run concurrently, meaning that we can still pursue through the state to
have this area lifted from the critical state concern, but we can also
look at policies to remove, or at least to provide some opportunity to
develop this property through relief of either the Growth Management
Plan or the land development code, if applicable. Of course, they're
both going to be rather long processes.
Thank you, Jim.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I didn't ask. Do we have any
speakers on this subj ect?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have had the motion repeated
to us.
Commissioner Henning made the motion, and it was seconded by
Commissioner Coletta.
Any further discussion?
65
July 27,2004
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You're opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I'm opposed.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So that's a 3-1.
Item #lOA
RESOLUTION 2004-242 ADOPTED THE PROPOSED FY 2005
MILl ,A GRRAIFS - A D.OTIED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item lOA, and
that's a recommendation that the board adopt the proposed FY-2005
millage rates. And that presenter is Mr. Mike Smykowski, the director
of Office and Management and Budget.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Michael Smykowski, O&B director.
Weare looking to adopt the proposed millage rates as the
maximum property tax rates to be levied in fiscal year 2005.
The tax rates that we'll be adopting today have to be provided to
the property appraiser by August 4th, then he, in turn, collects all the
tax rates from the various governmental jurisdictions, school board,
cities, independent fire districts, as well as the county, and prepares a
TRIM notice, which must be mailed by August 24th of each year to
each individual property owner in Collier County.
And that shows the relative impact to each respective property in
Collier County based on the updated taxable value of those properties
66
July 27, 2004
as well as the collective impact of the millages adopted by each of the
respective governmental bodies.
During the September public hearings, the board may maintain or
lower those millage rates. While there is a process by which the board
could actually increase the rates in September, it is actually so onerous
due to certified mail requirements to all property owners as to be
impractical, so this would be the maximum -- in general terms for
each property owner, the worst-case scenario in terms of millage for
each of the respective property owners.
Page 2 of your executive summary, the general fund budget, the
direction from our June workshops was for the county manager to
balance the budget and bring it back in a millage-neutral state.
During the workshops, the board did note some concerns about
achieving our millage-neutral target in fiscal year '05, while at the
same time exacerbating our budget problems into fiscal year '06.
As part of the budget policy preparation, there is an analytical
model we used to, based on revenue and expense assumptions, to
proj ect the updated year's general fund budget as well as millage rates,
given certain assumptions on taxable value.
Mr. Mudd has put those items -- the two bar charts on the
visualizer. Obviously the top chart identifies the historical and
assumed increases in Collier County taxable value.
And you see from the peak period in fiscal year '02 when we
were at 20.5 percent, that's dropped, you know, '03 to 18.3 percent,
down to 16.4 in '04, 11.8 in FY-'05.
The -- for purposes of the model, we assume 10 percent for fiscal
year '06, and 9 percent in fiscal year '07.
Then to update the model, obviously when we were at the budget
policy time frame in March, the FY -'05 budget was a projection at that
point. Obviously what we've done at this point is dropped in the
FY-'05 proposed budget balance and looked forward to project the out
years for '06 and '07. And it's not unlike what the model showed
67
---
July 27,2004
previously. And actually, if anything, a little worse scenario.
It shows a need for a fairly substantial millage increase in FY-'06,
going from 3.8772 mills, where we've been for the last three or four
years -- again, the live within your means following the sales tax
referendum, the board has maintained that millage-neutral status while
making significant general fund contributions toward the road
construction program to meet our growth management requirements
and fund our existing road deficiency that was not impact fee eligible.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, on -- if I may interject. Jim Mudd,
county manager, for the record.
The 2006 bar chart there was based on that 10 percent that
Michael -- that Mr. Smykowski showed you on the previous chart as
far as increase to assessed values.
I asked Michael to run the assessed values to 20 percent, okay, to
give me an idea of what the millage rate increase would have to be in
2006.
If it's at 20 percent, it's about -- it's about a quarter mill increase.
If it's at 10 percent, it's about point -- it's about a half mill increase, a
little bit more than half a mill increase. And that's what you basically
have depicted on that bar chart.
The -- there's some significant things in '06 that are -- that are
going to impact us. I don't know how -- you know, we'll do a valiant
effort to try to -- to try to balance the budget, but it's going to be very,
very difficult in '06 in order to do so.
There's some things in '06 that we're going to have to take a look
at as far as millage rate is concerned. I'm going to have to talk about
staffing at library expansions and new libraries. We're going to have to
talk about staffing at a regional park, because I don't see those in the
books if that's what we're looking at.
And if the board takes a millage-neutral stance in '06, we could
have some buildings with no -- with nobody -- with books but nobody
to open up the buildings in order to do it, or a park that sits there that
68
_'.~-,-,_.,.....,>.~~
July 27,2004
nobody can get to because there's nobody there to staff it. Those are
all things that we have to consider as we go through this process.
'06 is going to be a very, very difficult year for Collier County.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Go ahead.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The purpose of the model, obviously, was
to give you some semblance of an idea what we're staring at in '06
while you're making financial decisions this year. As Mr. Mudd
indicated, it will, indeed, be a challenging year.
Obviously the construction industry is moving along. There's
been some recovery there, but obviously the trend has been toward a --
a slower growth in the increase in taxable value.
And actually, if you look at that chart, it wasn't too many years
ago when you were in -- you know, it was back in fiscal year '99,
which isn't that far removed from where we're at today, where you
were in single digit numbers. So while growth continues, obviously
it's probably not going to continue at the record pace it had been from
the FY-'Ol through FY-'03 period.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do we have speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. I have two speakers. Don Hunter?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Commissioner, may I reserve until the
motion is made?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Until after the motion is made?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Just for discussion.
MS. FILSON: And the next speaker is Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Hello, again, Commissioners.
Just briefly as a citizen, 25-year resident of Collier County, I
would like to advocate for going for the higher number in the budget
so that through future public comment, you can make adjustments and
bring it down, not lock us into a lower number that can't be -- that's
more difficult to adjust upward, as Mr. -- Mike Smykowski had
explained.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
69
July 27, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Mike, in regards to your analysis
here, the criteria you're using, is this a model that you constructed
yourself, or is this some facts and figures from BEBR?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. This is a model I've constructed. I've
used it probably -- probably eight years now. And it's fairly well
refined in terms of, we were within actually a couple $100,000, I
believe, of where the -- where the fiscal year '05 general fund budget
ended up at this point, at the balance date. That was fairly close to
where it was projected during the budget policy guideline. Obviously
MR. MUDD: That was done in March.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: In March.
MR. MUDD: So with -- basically what we've looked at over the
-- Jim Mudd, county manager, for the record again.
What we look at with Mike's model, it has given us the ability to
look at it years out. He can put the information in. In March what we
basically ran for '05, which is within a couple $100,000 of what the
budget, actually turned out to be after submittals and whatnot. So it's
pretty -- it seems to be a pretty good model, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what you're saying is your error
is probably less than one percent or --
MR. MUDD: One--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: One percent category?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
MR. MUDD: In this particular year, yes, sir.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Now, in terms of the assumptions, you
need to understand that obviously it's built on that 10 percent taxable
value figure, but obviously you're not going to know what the taxable
value is for '06 until next June when you get a preliminary estimate
from the property appraiser.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But I'm looking for the field of
error that you've encountered in the years past while you've been
70
July 27, 2004
working with this model.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yeah. It's been fairly reliable within --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So you're within two percent?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Sure, I think that's fair. Obviously the
constitutional officers playa part in that as well.
We've updated the model based on projections for the sheriffs
needs for FY-'06. And obviously that represents close to 40 percent of
the general fund, and that has an impact, depending on those needs.
If a law enforcement impact fee were to be adopted at some
future date, obviously that would relieve some of the expanded capital
that we have. There's almost $2 million in the sheriffs office that is
projected for '06. If there were a law enforcement impact fee in place,
obviously that's $2 million that --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: If. I'm trying to be fair. And it assumes
that all current services continue to be funded.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Well, Commissioners, I
guess we're going to have to figure out where we're headed here.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I could, Mike. What would be
your recommendations? I mean, we have an obligation not only to
look at today, but what's going to happen next year.
Do you have any recommendations that we should be
considering as far as possibly a small increase now to avoid that big
increase in '06?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is -- that is an option. I will also tell
you though that you probably -- there are some people in the
community who would say, raise the millage incrementally this year,
and then you're going to hear probably from people like Janet Vasey
who I could hear saying, you raise the taxes in the year when you need
them. You are at a millage-neutral -- millage-neutral point this year.
You don't need to raise the millage next year. Wait and see how the
71
July 27, 2004
budgets come in next year and/or deal with that through the budget
policy discussion for fiscal year '06.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's Janet Vasey. How about
the budget director; how does he -- what does he see?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: I say you're millage-neutral this year.
While '06 is challenging, I think you need to address '06 as it comes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. In other words, not try to
make adjustments now.
But what about the -- once again, that UFR list that we had.
What a disappointment to find there was no reserves at all so that we
could start some sort of discussion going back and forth to meet some
of our other needs that were in this county.
I understand where some of this thought is coming from as far as
allowing for a small increase and in September addressing it again, as
everybody has a chance to collect their thoughts and we have more
people back here that can put their input into it. But then, again, too,
I'm not too sure if this commission will even be interested in
discussing it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- there's a lot of unknowns
about 2006, you know, what the assessed values will be.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But the trend is there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, there are some known
things, but I can tell you one known thing, Collier County spends a lot
of money providing services to the taxpayers in our county, and it's
nothing to be proud of.
And I believe that we should try to keep those costs down as
much as possible and provide what the taxpayers want in Collier
County .
So with that said, I will move to approve the general fund millage
rate at 3.8772. You want to go ahead and do the other ones?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. Your motion should encompass
72
July 27, 2004
all of the millage rates for the various MSTU s that are included in
your attachment in the executive summary. You'd be adopting the
resolution and incorporating the tax rates identified on page 5 and
identified in attachment A therein.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the
attachments and the resolution.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll second that motion.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is that supposed to be now? After the
motion is made you said. I didn't know if you meant voted or what.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Oh. Well, you can do it either way, I
suppose. You're running the meeting, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, being that I went this far and said,
go ahead, whatever, why don't you just tell me what you would like to
do. After we've voted or now?
SHERIFF HUNTER: I prefer to do it at the moment, if I may.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Go ahead.
SHERIFF HUNTER: I see now the direction the board wishes to
go. I would like to make a quick statement for the record.
First I appreciate the opportunity to speak. Don Hunter, Sheriff of
Collier County, for the record.
And I appreciate the commission's work on the budget. And I
certainly understand, as I indicated during the June 30th workshop, the
difficulty that the board is faced with in attempting to make some very
difficult decisions for the future.
I believe that the comments that have been made this morning are
certainly germane pertaining to the very large looming issue that faces
this board, this county, this constitutional office for the coming years,
and there doesn't appear to be any dissipation in the trends with the
opening, in my mind, of new facilities, new construction, more
residents, part-time and full-time, coming to Collier County, and the
73
----'....--
July 27,2004
visitors, especially in the northeast quadrant that we see such major
change in.
And again, I'll refer to Waterways and Orange Tree, Ave Maria,
as some of my concerns, especially for construction, construction
traffic, preserving the construction sites, the vandalism that occurs at
those construction sites, the thefts there, the insurance implications
there, calls for service that will be coming out of that area, the fact that
we'll have traffic congestion, and difficulties in maneuvering in that
area.
Even though new roadways are under construction, we will
continue to see some congestion in that area, I believe.
We've been able to work with the board's direction to try to see
our way of reducing, to some extent, the proposal as we submitted to
the board on June 1. We did that by phasing in positions to the tune of
about 3.8 million.
The reason we have done that is because we still have gotten no
clear indication from the criminal justice academy out of Lee County
that we would be permitted to have our own academy here in Collier
County to instruct the 60 additional positions for the expanded jail
facility.
Had we been able to secure that, we would have continued to
seek board approval to have those 60 positions acquired ASAP, as
soon as possible, because we know that it takes about a year to get
those people, our new members, in position and in a position to
operate the expanded facility.
So having not secured the approval of the State of Florida to have
our own academy locally, we're forced to consider the possibility of
phasing in positions and moving off our original plan as submitted to
you.
So that will dictate, to some extent, when we can hire people
inasmuch as we may not be able to place them in the academy
immediately.
74
July 27,2004
I would encourage the board to consider the possibility of
preserving that 3.8 million with a millage rate sufficient to fund that in
the event that we are able to secure approval from the Criminal Justice
Standards and Training Commission and the State of Florida, Florida
Department of Law Enforcement for our own academy here, because
we continue to need those people within that -- within that year for the
opening of the new facility.
We still hear that the predicted open date may be as early __
opening date may be as early as July of 2005 or as late as September
of2005.
So we continue to have that need for the 3.8 million, and I would
simply ask the board to be aware of that. And that if you were to
establish the millage rate at a -- an amount sufficient to fund the 3.8
million, we certainly would be able to back off of that September if
we were unable to secure the academy.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Sheriff Hunter.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm -- I think we are going in the
right direction here, and we'll see what happens in the future. And I
would hope that we could work with the sheriffs department and
make -- hopefully maybe look at contracting out the jail services.
That might be a way of cutting some of the costs, too.
I know that we need to have as many officers on the road as
possible. Again, I think that maybe there's other opportunities there,
so -- stick with that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And we all have to realize that
next year is -- we're going to really have to bite the bullet. We're
going to have to increase those taxes with all of the things coming on.
As much as all of us have been against it, we've got to tackle some of
these problems that are looming ahead of us.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly right.
75
--
,'.-.-
July 27, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, I'm not sure if I
agree with that statement. I think it's a little premature to know what
the millage rate or increase would be in '06.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You can see the projected cost, and
all we're doing is we're pushing this can down the road.
Right now the sheriff has basically said that he is willing to
forego the 3.8 mill., but what he's doing -- saying basically is that is
pushing that cost down the road and that it's going to come back and
bite us next year, and it's going to be not only the 3.8, but it's going to
be whatever additions that -- to his budget that we look at at that point
in time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a
second.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No more speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a 4-0 on that.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sheriff Hunter, thank you for all you've
done to help us to reach this budget. I know it hasn't been easy for
you, because you've had to accommodate some of our wishes, and we
appreciate that.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, while the sheriff -- while the sheriff is here
76
'--.----
July 27,2004
-- and the reason -- and maybe I can have your staff not have to come
back at some hour this afternoon.
Item #13A
THE BCC SERVE AS A LOCAL COORDINATING UNIT OF
GOVERNMENT IN THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT'S EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL STATE AND
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE FORMULA
GRANT, APPROVE THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE GRANT
APPLICATION, AUTHORIZE ACCEPTANCE OF THE GRAND
AWARD AND APPROVE ASSOCIATED BUDGET
A.MENnMENTS - AIœROVED
There's an item on 13A that was an add-on because the packet
came late.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, yeah.
MR. MUDD: And it had to do with recommendation that the
BCC serve as a local coordinating unit of government in the Florida
Department of Law Enforcement's Edward Byrne Memorial State and
Local Law Enforcement Assistance Formula Grant, approve the
sheriffs office grant application and authorize acceptance of the grant
award and approve associated budget amendments. It's on the regular
agenda because it wasn't part of the published -- because it walked on
later.
Commissioner, I'd --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
MR. MUDD: I'd recommend approval.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second.
So we have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Henning, a
second by Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor, say aye.
77
...... ...-.'-----
July 27,2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 4-0, and we're done. Thank you.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Item #10B
RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW A PROPOSAL FROM
SOUTHWEST HERITAGE, INC., TO LEASE THE NAPLES
DEPOT AS A BRANCH FACILITY OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
MUSEUM - THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item lOB. And
this is -- this item basically is being continued. I wanted to make sure
that we had a space holder to let you know that we haven't forgot
about it. We're still coordinating with the Naples Depot folks in order
to work out arrangements to come back to the board in order to share
those with you. So we're asking that that item be continued.
Item #10C
THAT THE BCC APPROVE THE MPO'S FY 2004/05
OPERATING BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $701,230 AND ALL
ASSOCIATED FUTURE BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO A
78
July 27, 2004
That brings us to item 10C, and that is that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the MPO's FY-2004/2005 operating budget in
the amount of $701,230, and that all associated future budget
amendments to a maximum amount of$1,324,934.
And this item is to be presented by Mr. Johnny Limbaugh of the
MPO.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second.
We have a motion on the floor to approve by Commissioner
Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, I also want to make sure that you know
that the public involvement piece to this budget is not included and --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
MR. MUDD: -- will come back to the board.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It stated that very clearly.
MR. MUDD: That was the contentious item from the June
meeting, and it's not included in this particular packet. They will
come back again after they get the authority to go any deeper --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: If it were, I wouldn't be voting for it.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any discussion on this subject?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we have no speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
79
July 27,2004
Item #10D
RECOMMENDATION TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM THE
DEVELOPER OF AVE MARIA UNIVERSITY TO EXPAND THE
LIMITS OF THE COUNTY'S FEMA-RELATED BASE FLOOD
ELEVATION STUDY, BEING DONE BY TOMASELLO
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, TO INCLUDE THE
FAKAHATCHEE STRAND DRAINAGE BASIN, WHICH IS
WHERE THE AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP COMMUNITY
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 10D, and this
is a recommendation to consider a request from the developer of Ave
Maria University to expand the limits of the county's FEMA-related
base flood elevation study being done by Tomasello Consulting
Engineers, to include the Fakahatchee Strand drainage basin, which is
where the Ave Maria stewardship community district is situated.
And Mr. Joe Schmitt, the administrator of community
development, will present.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have three speakers on this subject?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If we could, I'd like to hear the
speakers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That motion dies at this time for
lack of a second.
MS. FILSON: Cindy Kemp. She will be followed by Bob
Krasowski.
MS. KEMP: Good afternoon. Cindy Kemp from the Property
80
^-,,-~-,.,-~
July 27, 2004
Rights Action Committee.
PRAC is the watchdog group for the property rights. And at our
last meeting, we happened to have Stan Chrzanowski from the county
come and go over the lidar maps, which was a great presentation that
he did.
As you know right now -- and thanks to Commissioner Coletta,
we appreciate your letter to the Army Corps of Engineers -- we are in
communication with the Army Corps of Engineer (sic) right now
concerning the restoration to the south blocks, which brings me to this
Issue now.
The only people that this study will benefit is the Ave Maria and
Barron Collier. The proposed study area expansion goes around
Immokalee where there's no people, and that doesn't include -- it
doesn't include Immokalee itself where all the people are.
So PRAC's suggestion is that this study should include the
Immokalee area where the people are and the south blocks where the
restoration is going in because so many people have concerns about
water levels rising and people in northern Golden Gate Estates being
affected by that.
So we just feel that the county consultant, Richard Tomasello,
could do the analysis, and PRAC and the county engineers would feel
a lot more comfortable having this information that we're trying to
obtain from the Army Corps since there's such a lack of underlying
documentation as to what is happening.
So we feel this is money badly spent on people that don't need it.
They're a special district. They're well off. The people of
Immokalee, the people in northern Golden Gate Estates, I think,
should benefit from a study here.
We should pay for a portion of the study, but not the whole thing,
and we should include these other areas in the study, and that's it.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Bob Krasowski. He will be
81
---.--,.,..,
-,,~---
July 27, 2004
followed by John Passidomo.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Since I'm here, I -- Bob Krasowski for the
record. Since I'm here, I want to agree with Ms. Kemp's position. I
think there should be a proportional distribution of the cost of this
among those who are benefiting from it. And in this tight budgetary
time, you should pay real close attention to this, as you should to other
things I'll bring up later in the day. That's all.
MS. FILSON: John Passidomo will be your final speaker.
MR. PASSIDOMO: Good morning. Madam Chairman,
members of the Board of County Commissioners, my name is John
Passidomo. My address is 821 5th Avenue South.
Our firm represents New Town Development as developers of
the town of Ave Maria and Ave Maria University. We appreciate the
opportunity we've enjoyed in recent years to work with the county,
environmental advocates, and other stakeholders in realizing the goals
of the rural land study area through the creation of the town of Ave
Maria and the development of the university, which will be part of that
town.
We're also grateful for your consideration of this request to
expand the ongoing base flood elevation study under FEMA to all of
Collier County outside of the area of critical state concern.
The town of Ave Maria and the area proposed to be ultimately
developed comprise less than 5,000 acres of the proposed
approximately 100,000 acres proposed to be added to the study area.
The elevation of that land at Ave Maria is some 20 to 22 feet.
The FEMA flood elevation maps, however, arbitrarily define the area
east of Collier Boulevard out to State Road 29 as an unnumbered A
zone. The consequence is that the university and the adjoining town
would therefore be forced to purchase flood insurance at considerably
higher rates, indeed, at the highest rates under law, some $1,200 per
$100,000 of improvements, higher than lower neighboring areas
surrounding the properties.
82
July 27,2004
Mr. Healy had hoped to be here on behalf of Ave Maria
University to share with you some sense of the implications this will
have for the university and the development of what they hope will be
affordable housing at the university, but we respectfully request that
you simply apply your own imaginations to the implication of an extra
$1,200 per $100,000 of improvements to this land and to only this
land and to no other land throughout Collier County, and anticipate
what the implications will be.
We believe this is wrong, and we agree as a matter of
fundamental fairness with your own staff that the study should be
expanded to cover the remainder of Collier County and the remainder
of the rural land study area.
We also believe that expanding the study area and making it part
of the existing study is the only way to seriously get the attention of
FEMA by providing data that's empirical and is generated through the
existing consultants.
We thought it might be helpful to you, however, to put the
pending request in the context of its historical significance. When the
detailed flood insurance rate map study was initiated in 2003 to cover
the coastal areas and parts of Golden Gate Estates and when the study
was expanded earlier this year in 2004 to cover the major portion of
Golden Gate Estates, it included developed and undeveloped land, it
included densely populated and sparsely populated land, it included
zoned and unzoned land, it included land that was subject to a
community development district and land that wasn't subject to a
community development district, it included land that was part of
special taxing district and land that was not part of special taxing
district.
What the initial study and the first expanded study, however, had
in common with each other and what they have in common with the
proposal in front of you today are four basic things: They included all
of the land within Collier County except for the area of critical state
83
~-_.._~....-
July 27, 2004
concern.
They all included land for which valid empirical data was
required to set base flood elevations actively.
They all included land for which the landowner and their
predecessors had paid ad valorem taxes over a significant period of
years.
And finally, they all involve a cost of the ongoing study to be
paid for and the cost of the pending expanded study before you today
proposed to be paid for from the same funding source, ad valorem
taxes, to which all the property owners had contributed.
We respectfully request that, as a matter of fundamental fairness,
the base flood elevation study on these rural lands be considered on
the same basis that you've considered all the prior requests, in fact, on
the same basis that you've treated all the other property within Collier
County .
We fully appreciate that time is of the essence, and our client has
generated extensive materials from its analysis of the rural land study
area which they're prepared to share with the consultants and work
with the consultants in expediting this in a way that serves their
interest, serves the interest of the other 90,000 acres surrounding them,
and serves the interest of all of Collier County.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Passidomo.
I'd just like to make a comment here, although I probably should
wait till everybody else did. But I would like to say I do believe that
we need to expand these -- into this area so that all are treated fairly as
far as the maps go. I believe this is the time to do it right now.
Conversely, I think that everybody in the Estates has already
been paying their taxes, and we are using that tax money in order to
fund the study; whereas, this area has been paying little or no taxes all
of this time, and I'd like to include them, but I feel that there should be
some kind of cost sharing involved, because some of this area's still
84
July 27,2004
going to be never paying taxes, and we're going -- we, the citizens of
Collier County, are going to have to be footing that bill.
So I don't -- I don't feel that I would want to go ahead and fund
the entire study. That's my issue.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we could always direct
staff, when we reach some sort of understanding, to go back and see
what cost sharing would be involved with -- Ave Maria, which you
represent, is just a small part of this whole entity out there. I don't
think it would be fair at all for you to bear the cost of the total thing.
My question is, going back, Immokalee, how will Immokalee --
why isn't Immokalee included into this study as it is now, or is that
something that's totally unnecessary?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, just for clarification. Well, to
answer your question, preponderance of Immokalee is in an X zone,
which is designated as not required -- requiring flood insurance
because of the elevation.
The area, the map shown on your screen, the yellow was the area
that was sent to Tomasello Engineering by WilsonMiller as the area
for study. This was not a proposal by the county staff.
I would venture to say, and I've talked to Dick Tomasello, that if
you look at the northeast portion of Immo -- of the map, north of
Immokalee and the flowways that have to be evaluated, I would
anticipate that some of that is going to have to be evaluated as it goes
around Immokalee through that area, so Immokalee, in most cases,
will probably have to be covered in some aspect of it, as along -- in
the area of Lake Trafford.
The -- but the area in yellow is the area that's being requested for
this specific study at $120,000. You'll note in the executive summary,
we've already spent $571,000 on this -- on the various aspects of the
ongoing study. The--
MR. MUDD: And that part of the ongoing study, is that -- on
85
July 27, 2004
their screen that's --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. It's the crossedhatched area, which is the
preponderance of the rest of the incorporated county, or
unincorporated county, and certainly into the City of Naples. And we
do have a cost sharing agreement with the City of Naples. It's an
80/20 split, and that was just for the coastal study.
The other thing that I want to make sure you understand, there is
a portion -- of course, right here is Ave Maria, but this portion of the
study would certainly benefit any future development in the Big
Cypress special district as well, since it is inclusive of both the Ave
Maria -- flowways that impact the Ave Maria and flowways that
certainly may for future development in the Big Cypress Basin.
You'll note in the executive summary, we do recognize the need
to do this because we should expand the study eventually . We do
have six ongoing studies right now with Tomasello Engineering, but
we also caution that this would have to come out of fund 111 reserves,
and I know there's a tight budget. And I would have to defer to the
county manager in regards to whether or not -- or to you-all, if you
want to -- if you want us to tap the fund 111 reserves knowing that
we're pretty much tapped out.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: When I spoke of cost sharing, I was
speaking of cost sharing between the Ave Maria people and the
Barron Collier people or the Collier Enterprise people. That cost
sharing. I wasn't even including us in that equation. So I felt that, you
know, they would be the beneficiaries.
The people that we have included now that we're taking out of
our ad valorem taxes have already been paying for them all along, and
so I can see doing that. You know, like in Golden Gate Estates,
people have been there for many, many years paying into these taxes,
and so this is a benefit, and a rightful benefit for them. But this area
has been --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Possibly we could leave it up to
86
July 27, 2004
staff to come up with something that would be equitable. In other
words, it's not a case they haven't been paying taxes; they have. It's
just been a very small amount of farmland or wild lands, but some sort
of prorated system could come into play. And then recognizing the
fact that taxes have been paying for all those years, prorate against
what people may pay in Golden Gate Estates here along the coastal
area for the benefits they're receiving. I'm sure we can come up with
something that would be --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I think so.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Did you want to make a motion
on that?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, not yet. Commissioner Henning and
Halas are waiting onboard.
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it appears to me, the area
in yellow, some of it will always be in farmland, and why would --
you don't need flood insurance for farmlands or a tractor or barn or
something like that.
So Mr. Passidomo, wouldn't you feel that your clients would be
willing to pay for concluding this study?
MR. PASSIDOMO: Commissioner Henning, as I understand it
-- I'll defer to Mr. Schmitt. There are other basins, and this study can
only be expanded on a basin by basin basis. You can't leapfrog over
other basins. You have to be adjacent to the existing study area.
That's why the proposal clearly includes 100,000 acres of which only
5,000 acres is included within Ave Maria. But as I understand it, there
was no alternative but to include the entire 100,000 acres.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Which -- answer my question
about your clients; would they be willing to pay -- pick up the cost
associated with this expanded study?
MR. PASSIDOMO: Well, Commissioner, they'd be willing to,
as Chairman Fiala has suggested and Mr. Coletta has suggested, look
87
July 27, 2004
at what they've paid in taxes, what they've received in services. In all
due fairness, I think ones who represent the rural areas fully appreciate
that the cost of services to these areas has been diminimus over the
years. To have that taken into account in what a fair cost sharing
would be, would be appropriate.
But we'd like to take into account, too, what's happened
throughout the county. In other parts of the county, there have been
special taxing districts in place, community developments districts in
place, and there have been places where they've been sparsely or
unpopulated.
But each of those areas receive credit for taxes paid. And we'd
like -- we think it's important to make the decision to move forward
with this study. No question about it, you need to come out of that
meeting -- this meeting with that.
But as we talked to staff about a fair cost sharing, we'd like all
those factors to be taken into account.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hopefully staff can give me some
direction here in regards to, what's the elevation out there? I know
Immokalee's around 35 feet above sea level. What are we talking
about in these other areas of -- do you have any feel at what elevation
MR. SCHMITT: Just a rough guess. It ranges from probably --
in this area maybe in the 20s up to about 25 or 30, and 35 up in
Immokalee.
And the question in regards to the basin study -- and I'll just flip
for a minute. This may be a little bit more confusing. But shown here
are the different colors of the flowway basins that are studied. We're
not -- in the -- in doing the analysis of the flowways -- and I won't
describe each of these, but this is the rather large flowway -- and the
various flowways here, when Tomasello Engineering has to look at it,
they have to look at the entire piece.
88
July 27, 2004
But we have no intent of going in there and doing flood insurance
rate maps for the area. But it's just the way we have to gather it so we
can analyze the -- well, the flood patterns and the flow of -- the
patterns where waters would flow in the event of a significant storm.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So basically what we're say -- what
you're saying here, if we cut to the chase here, that they probably are
not going to have to be required to buy flood insurance anyway, so
why spend the money out there?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, the piece with Ave Maria -- and Mr.
Passidomo is correct. Ave Maria and a preponderance of that portion
of the county is in what is called an unnumbered A zone. An
unnumbered A zone means it's undetermined. An insurer will say, it's
undetermined or it's future -- it's going to be determined, and they will
charge the maximum rate, because the insurer doesn't know what the
rate is.
Our intent in northern Golden Gate Estates and up through that
area is to eventually define what we called numbered A zones or
numbered AH zones and define the base flood elevation.
The base flood elevation is important to the development from a
standpoint of defining where the anticipated flooding 100-year event
will occur, at what level, so that they can design the school
appropriately and have buildings up above the base flood elevation.
What had happened in a meeting we had concerning the DRI, in
the Ave Maria DRI, we explained that to WilsonMiller, gee, we have a
problem out here.
We have unnumbered A zones, and you are going to pay dearly
for insurance, just as folks in the Estates will, and that's why we've
gone through this exercise to try and define and establish base flood
elevations throughout the county -- and that's all the crossedhatched
area there that we're going to try and establish -- and define elevations,
or BFEs, base flood elevations. Out in that part of the county it just
never came to mind because, frankly, it was -- there was no
89
-"---,
July 27,2004
development.
It was when we were at the DRI meeting back in May and we
said, you know, we have a problem out here. You're building in an
area that's an unnumbered A zone, and we ought to be looking at this
as well, but we certainly recognize that it's sparsely populated.
It was not included. You recall, we came back to the board for
additional money to include portions of the Estates, Rock Road and
other areas that were omitted, and that's pretty much what's included.
Now, this is going to -- this will -- and Immokalee was not a
concern, because -- I don't have the flood maps, but I got to tell you,
about 95 percent of Immokalee is in an X zone, so it was pretty much
irrelevant. The only area that was of concern in Immokalee is towards
Lake Trafford to the west.
And if I were -- if you-all direct, we will go back and negotiate
with Tomasello. I would ask him to evaluate what would really have
to be studied in regards to this, because if you're in the area -- like I
said, if you're in the area -- up in this area, you may be looking at
flowways or flows coming in and around Immokalee, but I would
have to ask him what it would cost to also include that. I don't know.
That's a long answer to your question.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I could throw up another -- I can
throw up another --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me make a motion on this, if I may?
May I do that?
MR. MUDD: Can I -- yes, ma'am. Can I give you another __
somebody's -- can you hear me now?
What I'd like to do is, there's another -- there's another way that
you can try to figure out if there's going to be some kind of a cost
share option. You could do it by land mass. Mr. Schmitt just
mentioned that he would go back to Tomasello and talk to them about
what areas to take a look at.
What I -- and I want to say something about the Immokalee area
90
-.--
July 27, 2004
that's up on your screen in the light blue. We certainly don't want to
go on out there and study the basin and end up taking Immokalee,
which doesn't have to do flood insurance, and all of a sudden
designate them into a different -- so you've got to be careful in that
particular area to make sure that you don't -- 95 percent right now is in
an X zone. You certainly don't want to take them out of an X zone
because we went in and we studied that.
So I think Mr. Schmitt needs to ask Mr. Tomasello about that
yellow area that's to the northeast of Immokalee that sits there.
The next issue I would say to you is, you showed some -- you
showed some land areas, and you have Ave Maria in the middle, and
you've got the Big Cypress stewardship district off to the left that's
very long in that process. You could also do a cost share based on __
based on land mass in the yellow area that you finally come up with
that you want to add on in the study, and then you can take that land
mass and come out with a proportional share of what the dollars __
does it come -- this part comes out of 111, this part comes out of Ave
Maria, and this one comes out of Big Cypress.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, my motion was going to let staff
decide how they want to divide up that cost share.
I was going to make a motion to approve the request to expand
the scope of work with the existing contract but have staff work with
the owners of that area, the property in that area, as well as the Ave
Maria people, and figure out a cost sharing whereby the county is not
paying the lion's share, but we will participate to some degree.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a
second that we --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do we address--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Did we address the
Immokalee, the far part of Immokalee as far as where we're going
91
July 27,2004
there, or were you recommending we don't get into that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We don't get into Immokalee.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, we might hurt them rather
than help them. Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: If I could ask, that's something, when we go
back to the engineer, we're going to have to discuss the impacts.
And certainly what Mr. Mudd said is correct. It's kind of, don't
ask the question if you don't want to know the answer on this one, and
the fact it's in an X zone. But we may have to -- I know I spoke with
him and -- concerning the basin to the northeast, the Barron River
canal basin, may have -- does impact the four portions of the
Fakaunion and the Fakahatchee flowway. So I did talk to Dick
specifically about that, and that does impact some of the flows coming
across 29.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's sufficient, right?
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. So -- but we'll come back. This will
have to come back again, and it will be expansion of the -- it'll come
back to the board again because it's an expansion of the contract and
the scope of work, and you'll have to approve the contractual
arrangements on that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So we have a motion on the floor,
and a second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any further discussion?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, could I ask a clarifying --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, sir.
MR. MUDD: -- clarifying question? I just want to make sure,
because staffs going to go out there and start negotiating.
Now, you said not -- and I feel like I'm doing a parable at church.
You know, if Sodom has 50 -- 50 good people, are you going to still
destroy it, God? What I'm asking right now is, when you said lion's
share, are you saying the cou -- the county's cost will not be more than
50 percent of the cost of the entire project?
92
.~_.-..~-_.-
July 27, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's exactly what I'm saying. Yeah, I
prefer to see it 20/80, quite frankly, but I'm not going to say that in my
motion.
MR. MUDD: Not more than 50 percent.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Not more than 50.
MR. MUDD: Thank you, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not less than 80?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Huh?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We've already voted on that,
haven't we?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No?
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Item #10E
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE AGREEMENT FOR
HALDEMAN CREEK DISPOSAL WITH LAKE VIEW DRIVE OF
NAPLES, LCC, OF FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY-
A.E£R OVEn
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that bring -- that brings us to 10E,
and that is a recommendation to approve the agreement for Haldeman
93
--.--.-
" _...m."___"..."_~
July 27,2004
Creek Disposal with Lakeview -- with Lakeview Drive of Naples,
LCC, a Florida limited liability company.
And Mr. Peter Hayden will present from the stormwater
department.
MR. HAYDEN: Good morning, Commissioners. Peter Hayden,
Collier County stormwater, for the record.
Shown up here on the screen here is about a 14-acre parcel
located off of Lakeview. Just to the west you can see Windstar Golf
Course.
As commissioners know we've been working on this proj ect for
approximately two years now. We're back in with DEP and Army
Corps to finalize our permits.
As part of the permit process, we have to show a disposal site for
the Haldeman Creek sediment. We have worked out this agreement
with Antaramian Development over the past year or so. I'm bringing it
forth to the board so that they can discuss it and get a recommendation
to approve the agreement.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- the agreement, the way
it's written, I guess I have concerns about it. It's talking about density
confirmation, it's talking about site development plan, and it's almost
like we're giving a land use approval. And I just have a lot of
concerns with that type of language in there. It should be more of an
agreement of the spoils that are coming out of it and not a land use
agreement.
MR. HAYDEN: And I understand that. And as part of these
negotiations over the past year, the developer felt like he wanted that
language in there. I've worked with Joe Schmitt on this issue, and a
lot of it goes back on the developer. They're going to have to meet
timely deadlines as far as their submittal goes for their project.
94
July 27, 2004
Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That has nothing to do with the
spoil area, the use of this land for taking, you know, muck out of the
water and putting it on the land. The land use item has nothing to do
with it.
Is the property owner or representation from the property owner
here?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any public speakers on
this item?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
MR. SCHMITT: Again, for the record, Joe Schmitt, Community
Development/Environmental Services administrator.
Commissioner, in regards to use of the property for a site
disposal area, it does require am improvement plan. It is -- which is
the SIP portion, to deal with the construction of the -- the dikes and
the weir system that will eventually hold the disposal material, and
that requires approval process.
Also, because this is an ST area and there are -- what was in
contention was whether or not the ST permitted area in the mangroves
would be impacted. It was determined that in this case they would
have to come back in and do an EIS for this proj ect to define the
impacts within the Haldeman Creek area. Not the creek, but the
disposal area.
I can go into more detail if you wish, but the bottom line, it is a
transition. It's a site improvement plan because it isn't impacting lands
within the county, and then that land will eventually have to come
back through the approval process again as a site development plan
when, in fact, the petitioner or the potential developer chooses to
develop that property once the disposal area is retired, I guess, or
converted to buildable property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we predetermined in the
95
July 27,2004
SDP for building?
MR. SCHMITT: We are not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the density
confirmation? It's page 3 of the agreement, number 3. The county
acknowledges that Lakeview enters an agreement in reliance upon the
county's confirmation that the property is eligible for 51 units.
MR. SCHMITT: It's already existing zoning. That's in
accordance with the existing zoning in the property, and I can't recall
what it is right now. It's -- but that calculation was calculated right
from the zoning that currently exists for that area of the county. So it's
not a -- this would be built -- built under the auspices of the existing
zoning. There's no rezoning required--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So--
MR. SCHMITT: -- unless they come in and want to do a PUD of
some sort.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, there was a lot of -- and I've
mentioned to every commissioner, I said, make sure that you're
comfortable with this particular agreement, and I've talked to each one
of you on the dais and said, make sure you're comfortable.
There was -- and the reason I basically said that to you, is earlier
on there was a push by the developer, and it was a rather hard push, to
have -- to have the Community Development/Environmental Services
administrator determine based on his delegation of authority that an
EIS isn't needed because that is in the ST overlay area that has to do
with the Haldeman Creek issue.
And Mr. Schmitt has determined that they needed to come in
with an EIS, that's his decision to make, and I believe -- and I trust his
judgment -- that that's, indeed, what needs to be done.
I will tell you that developer is not happy about that decision.
And my answer to the developer is, I'm sorry, that's the decision that's
made, and you'll have to do an EIS. But I want to let you know that
this agreement has been in negotiation now for almost -- more than a
96
-'.-
July 27,2004
year, says Mr. Hayden, okay?
And I will tell you, early on, we were very, very uncomfortable
with this agreement. And I believe -- I've get as much comfort in this
agreement now over that year period of time -- it still has verbiage in
there that -- but when Mr. Schmitt made the determination that they
needed to do an EIS, my fears were allayed as far as this agreement is
concerned. I just wanted to let you know.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Then I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Halas, to approve the
agreement for Haldeman Creek disposal with Lakeview Drive of
Naples, and I have a second by Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. HAYDEN: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, 10F and lOG are at one o'clock.
Item #10H
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD A CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $35,379,910.53 TO APAC-
SOUTHEAST, INC. AND RESERVE $2,225,000 IN FUNDING
ALLOWANCES TO CONSTRUCT ROAD AND UTILITY
IMPROVEMENTS ON VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD, FROM
AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD TO JUST EAST OF COLLIER
97
July 27, 2004
BOULEVARD; PROJECT NO. 63051; BID NO. 04-3675; FISCAL
IMP A CTj):;7,60VlJ0 5:; - AEEROVED
The next items on the agenda are 10H, followed by 101. The
10H is, this is a companion item to 101. Recommendation to award a
construction contract in the amount of $35,379,910.53 to the
AP AC-Southeast, Inc., and reserve $2,225,000 in funding allowances
to construct road and utility improvements on Vanderbilt Beach Road
from Airport-Pulling Road to just east of Collier Boulevard, project
number 63051, bid number 04-3675, fiscal impact, $37,604,910.53.
And Mr. Gregg Strakaluse, the director of engineering and
transportation, will present.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- well, first of all, I want to
thank Norm Feder and the staff, especially the staff and Mr. Ruth, for
working with the citizens up there, as they always do, with the
projects.
Commissioners, a much needed item. This, a widening of
Vanderbilt Beach Road. My concern is -- and Mr. Feder and the staff
-- and I talked about it yesterday and I'm still not happy, or I still don't
feel comfortable. This project is a three-phase project. First phase
starting at the west on Airport Road to Livingston. The second phase
is from Collier Boulevard to Logan Boulevard, and the third phase is
Logan Boulevard to Livingston.
So my concern is, we're creating an hourglass effect where we're
going to have a bottleneck in the middle. And if I'm the only one with
that concern, then I think --
MR. STRAKALUSE: Commissioner, there are a couple reasons
that I could go into that explain a little bit about the sequencing of this
project.
To start, and answer the question about sequencing, the project
has been broken up into three milestones, starting at Airport Road to
98
July 27, 2004
1,000 feet east of Livingston Road where there are significant level of
service and safety issues associated with that segment.
The second phase is just east of Collier Boulevard to Logan
Boulevard. There are two other network proj ects that will be coming
online within the next year and a half. One of them happens to be
Collier Boulevard between Immokalee Road and Golden Gate
Boulevard, and the other one happens to be Logan Boulevard
Extension from Vanderbilt Beach Road up to Immokalee Road.
And as part of the Vanderbilt Beach Road project, it is required
that we bring the intersections at Vanderbilt Beach Road up to par and
to be consistent with the design of Logan and Collier Boulevard and to
do that in sufficient time. That was one of the justifications for
sequencing that way.
Another one is construction related. Weare developing some
pond sites, and there is some excavated material that we need to obtain
from pond sites within that second sequenced area in order to bring the
road elevation up in other areas, in segment two primarily.
I can assure you that the contractor explains to me that he doesn't
intend on working one segment at a time. He does intend on working
throughout the corridor. He does have that right within the contract.
You will see a busy contractor out there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: County Manager, do you have
any concerns about the phasing?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you're darned if you do and you're
darned if you don't in this particular one.
You've got -- you've got Livingston Road coming on, and you've
got Airport. And if you open up those six lanes and open that
bottleneck up, you've got people that can go north and south now, and
when you get to Immokalee Road or if you can get down to Golden
Gate Parkway -- and, again, Golden Gate Parkway has got some
construction going on it.
If you -- when you finish 951 and it goes six lanes from
99
'--...
July 27, 2004
Vanderbilt -- excuse me -- from Golden Gate Boulevard up to
Immokalee Road, if you get that Vanderbilt Beach piece done to
Logan, that's going to force a lot of traffic down Logan.
And if you remember correctly, it was constrained on purpose by
the board because of the sentiments of the residents that live along that
road, that that particular road from Pine Ridge down to Green would
be left in its present configuration, and then from Green down to the
Parkway, that Logan, Santa Barbara, would still be four lane on a six
lane, and then it would open up to six lanes from the Parkway down to
Davis Boulevard, if you can remember that.
So it could push some traffic on the second phase down the
Logan corridor and make that traffic congestion worse. That's the one
piece of this that bothers me a little bit. You asked me for my
concerns, that's my concerns.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And yet, there's nothing that we
can do, since the contract was sent out there, the way that we're going
to approve it, and I don't believe the board can change the contract on
the dais --
MR. STRAKALUSE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- for phasing.
MR. STRAKALUSE: According to purchasing, the bid
documents went out, and a competitive bid process was held under the
conditions that were set forth.
One thing that we are looking at changing in the future is to bring
projects before your board, requesting authorization to go out and
advertise proj ects, so you will see the bid package in its entirety ahead
of time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have -- I second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have one question.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me just repeat that, and I'll get -- I'll
get you for discussion, okay?
100
July 27, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: If I may. I have a motion on the floor to
approve by Commissioner Henning, and a second by Commissioner
Fiala.
And now for discussion, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Breaking this up in three phases, is
it correct in my assumption here you said that it would be more cost
effective to do it in this way because of the fact that you are going to
use some of the fill for when they dig the ponds for adding to the
elevation of the road; is that correct?
MR. STRAKALUSE: That's correct. There's significant
excavation going on in the eastern portion of the road proj ect.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So is this going to be cost effective
as far as this project so that we save money for the taxpayers?
MR. STRAKALUSE: It's as cost effective as could be designed.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So, I mean, there is a -- we
are getting something out of this even though we may put the people
in a position where they might be confined for a short period of time
with the amount of traffic congestion they're going to incur; is that
correct?
MR. STRAKALUSE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a
second.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
101
July 27, 2004
Item #101
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE SELECTION OF
QUALIFIED FIRM AND AWARD A CONTRACT UNDER ITQ 04-
3583 "CEI SERVICES FOR COLLIER COUNTY ROAD
PROJECTS" FOR PROJECT NO. 63051 "VANDERBILT BEACH
ROAD SIX-LANING PROJECT FROM AIRPORT ROAD TO
COLLIER BOULEVARD" IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,074,542.00 -
AEEROVED
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Companion item is 101.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I second that.
We have a motion to approve 101 by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion on that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now it's lunchtime.
MR. MUDD: We break for 60 minutes, and start back at one
o'clock?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: One hour, yes. And we'll be back for the
one o'clock time certain. Thank you.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, you have a hot mike.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats.
102
July 27, 2004
Item #lOF
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD A CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $32,999,885 TO MAGNUM
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CORP. d/b/a MCM CORP.
AND RESERVE $2,397,500 IN FUNDING ALLOWANCES TO
CONSTRUCT 6-LANE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AND A GRADE
SEPARATED OVERPASS ON GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY
GENERALL Y BETWEEN AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AND
LIVINGSTON ROAD, PROJECT NO. 60006, BID NO. 04-3653.
EJSCALlMPACL.$~5,~97,~R5 - AEEROVED
Commissioner, the item that we have right now, 10F. This is a
time certain item for one p.m. This also has a companion item, lOG.
This is a recommendation to award a construction contract in the
amount of $32,999,885, to Magnum Construction Management Corp.,
d/b/a MCM Corp., and reserve two point -- yeah, two -- $2,397,500 in
funding allowances to construct six -lane road improvements and a
grade separated overpass on Golden Gate Parkway generally between
Airport-Pulling Road and Livingston Road, project number 60006, bid
number 04-3653, fiscal impact thirty-five million, three hundred
ninety-seven thousand, three hundred eighty-five thousand (sic)
dollars.
And Mr. Norman Feder, the administrator for transportation
services, will present.
MR. FEDER: Commissioners, I'm going to be very brief. I'm
going to ask Gregg to go through with you the actual bidding process
and the contract.
What I wanted to do is tell you that we've gone through a very,
very extensive process in this project. Probably the most studied
project I've ever been involved in, and I think in many respects, has
benefited from that discussion in that venting.
103
July 27, 2004
Sometimes that creates anxiety, and I know we've all gone
through that. But I can tell you, we've gone through and studied every
alternative, any issue that's been raised to us. And in every case, the
results have come back from thorough analysis, is, that an overpass is
required to meet the needs in the future in this area.
I also want everybody to understand and that while we're looking
at the overpass there -- and that's what we're recommending to you
today, that we award the bid and move forward with it -- it is our
intent to make sure that that overpass is something that fits within the
community.
We've got hardscape features within this contract. We're going to
be coming forward with landscaping features as soon as the
construction's done and the contractor's out of the way.
So I think we've got a very good project, one that, many respects,
reminds me of Livingston Road where there's a lot of concern, a lot of
issues leading up to its start of construction. And now the only
question I have, and the answers, hopefully, in October, folks, is when
is it going to be finally completed.
So I hope that's exactly where we are here, and it turns out to be
something very good for the community. I'll ask Gregg then to
present you the specifics.
MR. STRAKALUSE: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Gregg
Strakaluse, for the record.
What you have here is a culmination of a decade of planning and
over two and a half years of engineering design and analysis.
The recommendation you have before you is an award of
construction contract to six lane the final segment of Golden Gate
Parkway between Airport Road and Livingston Road and build a
grade separated overpass at the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway
and Airport Road.
This project, like other major construction public works projects,
has been designed with the future in mind. It's also been designed to
104
-~.--
July 27, 2004
achieve the expectations of this community's character by integrating
unique architectural features and intensive landscaping.
This past April your board authorized staff to advertise bids for
this construction project. Staff did just that all in accordance with
Florida statute requirements for bidding public works projects above
$250,000, as well as Collier County purchasing policy.
This comprehensive bid advertisement included two
well-attended mandatory prebid meetings within a 56-day advertising
period. Interest was expressed by several companies throughout this
lengthy advertising period, up until the very last day.
I would like to applaud Steve Carnell and his purchasing staff for
their professionalism and their dedication to hard work and many long
hours into the proj ect.
The lowest responsive bidder, which happened to be the only bid
received, was submitted by Magnum Construction Management
Corporation out of Miami and headed by Mr. Juan Munilla. Mr.
Munilla's here in the audience with us, and he is sitting right back in
the audience.
MCM has been in business for over 20 years and has extensive
experience in building grade separated structures while maintaining an
outstanding safety record. MCM's low bid isn't all that surprising
because they just happened to be the successful low bidder amongst
five other bidders on the state's interchange job just down the road, as
well as the City of Naples water main relocation project along Golden
Gate Parkway.
That fact in itself, along with apparent economies of scale
explain much of why other bidders did not submit a formal bid.
After a thorough review of MCM's bid proposal and an effort on
MCM's part to further reduce bid prices, the low bid construction
contract being recommended for award is for an amount of
$35,397,385.35, which includes $2,379,500 in funding solely
dedicated to manage unforeseen events.
105
July 27, 2004
Construction costs are approximately four percent higher than the
engineer's estimate, which can be attributed to unstable concrete, steel,
and petroleum markets.
In April your board made it clear to staff that it wanted to factor
in potential costs associated with unforeseen conditions that come up
during construction, normally handled by change orders. Staff worked
with the purchasing department, the clerk's office, and is proposing a
process that has been used by the Public Utilities Department for
many years to manage unforeseen circumstances.
The $2,397,500 that staff is requesting to be reserved for this
project represents, to the best of our ability, those potential unforeseen
conditions. This is not -- this is not funding guaranteed to the
contractor. This funding allowance would only be used after a
diligent valuation of the unforeseen condition in a thorough
documentation process.
Finally, timing is crucial, it's important to this project. By 2007
the new interchange at 1-75 will be open to traffic pouring an
additional 18,000 vehicles onto the parkway. This project is
scheduled for two years of construction, very difficult construction.
This construction contract does have an incentive and
disincentive provision for early or late completion of the proj ect. The
contractor will receive roughly $4,100 a day for each day he finishes
ahead of schedule, up to a maximum not to exceed the amount of
$250,000 for 60 days of finishing ahead of schedule.
F or each day he comes in late, a disincentive, along with
liquidated damages, would be assessed in the amount of $21,000 per
day.
Madam Chair and Commissioners, this project is the next step in
your board's five-year transportation work program, and that work
program is designed to improve the county's entire road network to the
year 2025 and beyond.
The team has worked hard to reach this point and is present here
106
July 27, 2004
today; they include R W A, Stanley Consultants, Marlene Mesen
(phonetic), in the audience, your county's project manager, Gary
Putaansuu's also in the audience, and we're all here to answer any
questions you may have.
With that, staff recommends award of this staff construction
contract to MCM with the reservation of the necessary funding
allowances.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have any speakers?
MS. FILSON: Three.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have three speakers; would you call
those speakers?
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Karen Acquard. She will be
followed by Russell Tuff.
MS. ACQUARD: Madam Chairman, Commissioners, for the
record, my name is Karen Acquard. Today I'm wearing two hats.
First, as the past president and current treasurer of the Golden Gate
Estates Area Civic Association. I have been asked to speak on their
behalf.
We want to remind you that although it was not a unanimous
vote, the vote of the Golden Gate Estates members, which numbered
close to 300, was in favor of this overpass. The majority of the ones
who were opposed to it lived in the area that was serviced by our
subunit, which is the Santa Barbara/Logan. But the majority of the
people out in the Estates want this overpass.
It will help ease congestion now, but it is there looking to the
future of the -- with the rapid growth that is going on out there, being
able to get into town to go to work.
F or myself, I've watched this county grow and change since
1963. And while you have heard, and probably will hear more from
naysayers, I want to point out a few facts and ask you to keep them in
mind when you vote.
Many of those opposing this overpass don't have a clue what lies
107
July 27, 2004
east of Airport Road, much less Santa Barbara, and definitely not 951.
They have no idea how many thousands of houses are out there and
that most of the people are workers, and that's -- for each home, there's
at least two vehicles coming into town, and many of them are taking
this route that's in dispute.
Many of those who are opposed are doing so because they are
worried about how it's going to affect their lives and their home. They
don't really care how people get into and out of the city.
And as for the overpass, we know that it is a fact that it's an
unavoidable thing that's going to happen in the not so very distant
future. If you wait until that time, the cost is going to raise so much, I
don't even want to consider what it will be.
And by then, many of the current dissenters will have returned to
the north, they'll be put in nursing homes, many of them will have
died, and the future Board of County Commissioners is going to be
listening to a current group or a new group of criers, and they're going
to be screaming, why wasn't this done back in 2004?
Commissioners, please use your common sense and put this
overpass in now before the cost keeps rising and we have a roadblock
instead of a highway.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Russell Tuff. He will be
followed by your final speaker, Jack Pointer.
MR. TUFF: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Russell Tuff, and today I'm representing the Golden Gate Civic
Association and myself, and I live in Golden Gate City.
And for many people, they don't have a name or a face for that,
that live in the western part, so I just want to let you know my name is
Joel.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll split that with you later.
MR. TUFF: First of all, I'd like to applaud the efforts of the City
of Naples, the Bear's Paw residents, and of Grey Oaks. And we all
108
July 27, 2004
wanted an alternative and we'd like a better way. We all want to have
smooth traffic, and I guess we feel confident that the $500,000 we've
invested in consultants is adequate, and we feel strongly that you
should move forward.
Now, one of the things that, as myself, you know the road will
move commerce. I sit there from two to five light changes depending
on the time of the year and the time of the day, and that costs lots and
lots of money to the people that have services, whether it's the
air-conditioning guy, or I have a business where we send people out
on the street, and it takes lots and lots of time, and it is going to
meetings, and we all pay for that time.
And I believe one of the greatest fears that people have is
aesthetics, what it will look like, what it will do. And I believe that
what they'll -- from what I can tell, what they're going to put there is a
lot nicer than what exists today.
And as a civic association, we just hope that you go forward and
make progress like we should.
And I had one other note that has nothing to do with any of this.
But on my way to town on Golden Gate Parkway, there was a City of
Naples dump truck, a garbage truck, sitting on the side of the road,
broke down.
And in the late '70s, we had an agreement with the county and
the city that said they will not run their trucks through the middle of
our residential area. And so, if somebody could check into that, I'd --
it'd be nice not to have those garbage trucks running down that road,
and maybe take a little ease off that parkway, too.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The final speaker is Jack Pointer.
MR. POINTER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Jack Pointer from North Naples. I am one who uses that road
frequently, at least several times a week, from all four directions.
I come in from up north to come down to the commission
109
_,.__..... ...__u____H·_
July 27, 2004
meetings, and I come from the commission meetings to get back home
to supper, and sometimes I come over to Golden Gate for various
reasons such as going to some of the Golden Gate Civic Association
meetings that I attend.
It is very important that this commission at this time move
forward and approve this overpass, because if you don't, you're going
to see exactly the same thing that's happened over in Sanibel where a
bridge, just held up for a few years, has doubled the cost. It will do
that to us and we're still going to need it.
Please go ahead and approve this measure. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coletta to approve, and a second by Commissioner
Halas.
Comments from Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think -- while this capital
improvement has been very controversial in our community, I don't
think it takes joy for any of us to say we're jumping up and down
wanting to approve it, but we have a responsibility.
And, Commissioners, you have looked at all the other
alternatives, and I'm sure you came to the same conclusion as I, is
there is no other choice but to improve this. And if it is delayed any
further, like Mr. Pointer pointed out, the costs are just going to
escalate. We need to provide for not only our citizens today, but our
future.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll weigh in today, too. And I'll tell you
that it's probably -- I've struggled with this more than most. I almost
envy Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Henning because they
see the problems daily and they knew where they were going from the
start. They knew it was important to them.e
110
July 27, 2004
But I kept thinking of other ways to get around this thing. I was
very concerned about that. And I felt that, you know, if you judge it,
maybe we could make other alterations and we could save these
dollars.
So then I went to my -- my kitchen cabinet and asked them what
they thought, and they said 9-3 build it.
I went to East Naples Civic Association and just made a very -- a
very open survey. I asked everybody in the room, should we have it
or should we not, and it came out 30-32. So I mean, it was like 50/50.
So the ball was back in my court.
But as I poured through everything that the consultants have said
and as I remember all of the planning that did not take place that we've
had to make up with over the years, I felt that it would -- and we as
commissioners are charged with planning for the future, planning for
our residents in the future, planning for our children, I felt that I had to
vote for this.
So -- but I want to tell you, it's been a tough -- tough way to go. I
wanted to make sure that my vote meant something to me and to my
constituents.
So do we have anything -- Commissioner Halas, did have you
something to say?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd just like to say that -- I'd like to
thank the staff for their due diligence in doing as much research as
possible. And I also would like to thank all the citizens that got
involved in this process.
And yes, it was probably good. It was painful, but I think when
we look at this, we have to not only plan for the future -- but one of
my other concerns is, are the -- upon the completion of this overpass, I
think it's going to help expedite getting people out of here in case we
have a storm. That's one area that we won't have to worry about
traffic lights and it will be an exit point to the expressway so we can
get people out of here.
111
July 27, 2004
So I've studied this, I've looked at this, and I've also looked at
citizens and a lot of their other proposals that they brought forth. And
the bottom line is, I think this is the correct way to go about it. And I
really believe that when this is completed -- I know people don't like __
there's a lot of people that don't like overpasses, but I really think this
is going to add to the area.
And as one gentleman pointed out here just a few minutes ago,
it's going to be a lot better than what we presently have at this
intersection, and I really think that with the added features,
architectural features of this item that's going to be built here, that it's
going to not be an eyesore. That in fact, it may be -- it might enhance
that whole area there.
But foremost, the reason that I'm voting for this is I can see how
our -- the development of the communities out in that area are going,
and I also know that we're going to have a lot of commerce coming in
and going out of Naples. And, of course, there's the commercial area
in Naples that's going to be expanded.
So all in all, it's going to benefit everybody in Collier County,
especially the people that live out in Golden Gate who have to traverse
that area each day back and forth to work.
So I just want to thank the staff. I want to thank everybody for
really sticking together and coming -- having this come to fruition.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I didn't think commerce was going
anyplace at all as far as the City of Naples goes. I figure they're about
built out.
But one of the things you've been -- one cord you've been
striking over is hurricane evacuation. And I thought, the City of
Naples people -- that's another thing that went into my decision
making.
City of Naples people would be stuck -- if they couldn't get out
on Davis, and my goodness, they could never get up to Pine Ridge in
time, how are they going to get out if a storm hits? And I thought, my
112
July 27,2004
goodness, we have to think about their safety also.
So with that, I won't belabor the subj ect anymore.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a 4-0 on that.
Item #10G
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE SELECTION OF
QUALIFIED FIRM AND AWARD A CONTRACT UNDER ITQ 04-
3583 "CEI SERVICES FOR COLLIER COUNTY ROAD
PROJECTS" FOR PROJECT NO. 60006 "GOLDEN GATE
PARKWAY GRADE SEP ARA TED OVERPASS AND
APPURTENANCES, BEAR'S PAW TO LIVINGSTON ROAD" IN
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item.
This is a companion item. This item to be heard immediately
following 10F. It's a recommendation to approve selection of a
qualified firm and award a contract under ITQ 04-3583, CEI Services
for Collier County road projects, for project number 6000 -- say it
again -- 60006, Golden Gate Parkway grade separated overpass and
appurtenances, Bear's Paw to Livingston Road, in the amount of
$2,367,811.
And Mr. Gregg Strakaluse will present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
113
July 27, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion to approve and a second.
Motion to approve by Commissioner Henning and a second by
Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Item #1 OJ
RECOMMENDA TION TO OBTAIN BOARD APPROVAL OF A
DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN
BA YVEST, LLC, AND CENTEX HOMES (COLLECTIVELY THE
"DEVELOPER"), AND THE COUNTY, WITH RESPECT TO THE
HERITAGE BAY DEVELOPMENT. THE AGREEMENT: (1)
IMPLEMENTS CERTAIN IMPACT FEE CREDITS SET FORTH IN
A PUD DOCUMENT AND DRI DEVELOPMENT ORDER,
WHICH WERE RESPECTIVELY APPROVED BY THE COUNTY
ON JULY 29, 2003, INCLUDING REQUIRING THE DEVELOPER
TO PAY TO THE COUNTY WITHIN 45 DAYS OF THE DATE OF
THE AGREEMENT THE FIRST $5,000,000.00 OF THE
HERITAGE BAY ROAD IMP ACT FEES; (2) SUPPLEMENTS THE
PUD, IN THAT WITH RESPECT TO THE SOUTHERN
BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO IMMOKALEE
ROAD, AND 1.5 MILES OF THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF
114
July 27, 2004
THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE COLLIER BOULEVARD
PLANNED EXTENSION, INSTEAD OF SEPARATE SIDEWALKS
AND BIKE LANES AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 3.2.8.3.17 OF
THE LDC, DEVELOPER SHALL CONSTRUCT A TEN-FOOT
ASPHAL T GREENWAY TYPE PATH, OR MAKE PAYMENT TO
THE COUNTY IN LIEU OF SUCH CONSTRUCTION; AND (3)
FURTHER MEMORIALIZES A NUMBER OF DEVELOPER
COMMITMENTS PREVIOUSLY MADE IN THE PUD -
AEEROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 10J. And, Mr.
Mitchell, I think I'm going to get a check that we're going to have to
give you, okay? This is a companion item to 8A, and this is a
recommendation to obtain board approval of a developer contribution
agreement between Bayvest, LLC, and Centex Homes, collectively
the developer, in the county with respect to the Heritage Bay
development.
The agreement: One, implements certain impact fee credits set
forth in the PUD document and DRI development order which were
respectively approved by the county on July 29th, 2003, including,
requiring the developer to pay to the county within 45 days of the date
of the agreement the first $5 million of the Heritage Bay road impact
fees;
Number two, supplements the PUD, and that with respect to the
southern boundary of the property adjacent to Immokalee Road and
1.5 miles of the western boundary of the property adjacent to the
Collier Boulevard planned extension, instead of separate sidewalks
and bike lanes as required by section 3.2.8.3.17 of the land
development code, developer shall construct a 10- foot asphalt
greenway type path, or make payment to the county in lieu of such
construction and;
Four, further memorializes a number of developer commitments
115
~---~---'
July 27,2004
previously made in the PUD.
And Mr. Don Scott, chief of planning for transportation, will
present.
MR. SCOTT: There's a slight difference between the PUD that
was approve last year where they were talking about $5 million
prepayment. It's actually -- what they would like to do is pay
$7,057,652.50, which is somewhat less than half the development.
They are excluding the commercial at this point.
This is, of course, a follow-up to last year. It's been a year in the
making mainly due to the Immokalee Road widening issue and
whether we're going to have four or six lanes, now that that has been
resolved. That's why we brought this back at this time to you.
Any questions?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. A motion to approve from
Commissioner Coletta.
MS. FILSON: Oh, Commissioner, I have a speaker on this item,
lOJ.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. We'll come back to your
motion in just a second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a speaker.
MS. FILSON: Bruce?
MR. ANDERSON: I'm here to answer questions.
MS. FILSON: I don't have a speaker.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So, again, there is motion on the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- floor by Commissioner Coletta to
approve, and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion on that, Commissioners?
Y .?
es, SIr.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In regards to some of the
116
-~,_.
July 27, 2004
commitments that was made by the developer early on in the PUD, are
we still looking at the seven plus acres that are going to be
incorporated in that PUD --
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- for government buildings?
MR. SCOTT: 7.78 acres, yes, we are.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That is still involved in
that? Okay.
And I assume that -- I think it was taken care of, the payment to
Habitat for Humanity. That's been taken care of? Okay. Very good.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And you're still going to be building some
affordable housing -- or workforce housing, not affordable, but
workforce in there as well, right?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Okay. I have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coletta,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. WOODRUFF: May we make a presentation to you?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Give us some money.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, ma'am, please, take it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I was just going to say, are you going to
117
July 27,2004
pay for it? And then here they say it is money. I was going to be so
silly.
Richard, nice tie.
MR. WOODRUFF: This is a check -- this is a check for
approximately $3 million presented to the Board of County
Commissioners from U.S. Homes. They will be building the eastern
portion of Heritage Bay.
There is a companion check in the amount of approximately $4
million from Centex Homes. They will be building the western
portion of Heritage Bay.
I'm Richard Woodruff with WilsonMiller. And we've also
presented the actual check to Colonel Mudd on behalf of the
developers.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Richard. Thank you very
much. That helps our road get moving along, doesn't it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That brightens the whole day.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Item #10K
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES AGREEMENT NO. 04-3553 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$2,264,000 WITH CH2MHILL, INC., FOR THE DESIGN OF
COLLIER BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS FROM US41 TO
Okay. We're moving forward now to item 10K.
MR. MUDD: 10K is a recommendation to approve professional
service agreement number 04-3553 in the amount of $2,264,000 with
CH2MHill, Inc., for the design of Collier Boulevard improvements
from U.S. 41 to Davis Boulevard, project number 60001.
118
-"-"
July 27, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor from
Commissioner Henning, a second from Commissioner Halas, to
approve this -- this item, 10K, as recommended.
Do we have any discussion from any commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have any speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 4-0.
Item #1 OL
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD "ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR
MANHOLE AND LIFT STATION REHABILITATION
CONTRACTING SERVICES" TO SELECTED FIRMS, BID 04-
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is number 10L, and
this is a recommendation to award the annual contract for manhole
and lift station rehabilitation contracting services to selected firms. It's
bid 04-3660, and it's project 73051 for $2,588,397, and public utilities
will present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to -- yeah. Second.
119
July 27, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion on that, Commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for your time and talent, sirs.
Sorry we couldn't hear your scintillating tones.
Item #lOM
RECOMMENDA TION TO AWARD TO DIVERSIFIED DRILLING
CORPORATION, BID NO. 04-3663, NORTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT WATER SUPPLY
WELLS - WELL DRILLING SERVICES UP TO AN AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $3,207,613; PROJECTS 710061 AND 710111 -
AEEROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is number 10M, and
this is a recommendation to award a diversified drilling corporation
bid number 04-3663, north county regional water treatment plant
water supply wells -- well drilling services up to an amount not to
exceed $3,207,613. And this is projects 710061 and 710111.
And Mr. James DeLony, the public utilities administrator, will
present.
120
July 27,2004
MR. DeLONY: Commissioners, the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion on the floor
from Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala for
approval on this item.
Are there any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, I'd ask--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. DeLony won't have a chance to --
MR. MUDD: I'd ask the board just to listen to a couple
statements by Mr. DeLony, because I believe that the well situation at
the north water plant deserves some explanation to the board, because
we are having some problems with the wells that we have there.
Mr. DeLony?
MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony, public utilities
administrator.
The bottom line is, is that we were having problems delivering
sufficient quantities of raw water to our reverse osmosis plant at the
north water -- North Collier Water Treatment Plant.
Weare working with our consultant, MedCalf and Eddy as well
as others to advise us how best to proceed. The others being CDM,
which we recently put under contract to help us with wellfield
program management.
Now, we have not found the solutions that are -- that have made
me feel I've found the solution to recommend to you the -- what we
need to do. It deals with the ability to operate those wells without
having sufficient -- unsufficient -- or the wrong amount of drawdown
on the well.
And so that's what's caused the problems that we're having at the
north plant. I've reported that to you weekly with regard to our ability
121
July 27, 2004
up there. We've met demand, we've stayed in compliance.
But the bottom line of it, we've got some challenges
mechanically, and also in terms of our aquifer management. What
you've just approved will give us great flexibility to have additional
wells there so we can better provide for the mechanical shutdown of
those wells and perform the needed services on those wells, and also it
gives us a reasonable amount of assurance to be able to have a
continuous supply of raw water for the reverse osmosis process.
Mr. Mudd, that's all I have to say about that.
MR. MUDD: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Jim, while you're there, I've got a
couple of questions. I realize that some of the problems that you were
having there with the wellfield that we have presently probably is
because of the fact that some of the wells are closely situated together;
is that true?
MR. DeLONY: No, sir. I don't think it's interference of
drawdown. I do not. I think it just deals with us finding the right
balance with regard to that wellfield. That's my assessment.
Now, you know, I've got to make sure that I'm right in that
assessment. But when we spaced those wells, I think that we had it
right with regard to the ability to preclude drawdown affluence
between wells.
We also don't work them in series. We'll work one here and then
we'll skip one or whatever. So that also limits the amount of
drawdown we have within the affluence zone in those wells, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And are these wells going to be in
the same proximity as the present wells, or are they going to be placed
MR. DeLONY: Well, the deeper -- Hawthorne wells will be
spread out so we don't have those zones of affluence. And then the
mid- Hawthornes will go into another level in terms of the aquifer
itself. We'll be actually exploiting raw water from a different source
122
~---,...
July 27, 2004
than the Hawthorne. We'll be going a little shallower to what's called
the mid-Hawthorne.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Where will this put us in respect to
our requirements to be met next winter?
MR. DeLONY: Well, it's going to be a close run thing, the
ability to deliver these wells and have them up and running and
predictable. Right now, the worst-case planning, I have them in May,
coming online in May.
I'll be working with the consultants as well as the environmental
and the regulatory communities to make sure that we see what we can
do to accelerate that schedule. I'd like to have a couple of these
available to us no later than the middle of January, and that's really the
bottom line of my focus.
And the second -- the next items we're going to discuss in the
agenda will explain why that's an important focus for the utilities
department and -- the water department and the public utilities
administrator.
Does that answer your question?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, it does. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You want to tell us anything further?
MR. DeLONY: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Fine presentation.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Item #10N
123
July 27, 2004
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE AWARD OF BID #04-
3670 IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,275.650 FOR A CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT WITH DeANGELIS DIAMOND CONSTRUCTION,
INC. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NORTH NAPLES
GOVERNMENT SERVICES CENTER AND TO APPROVE A
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is number ION, and
this is a recommendation to approve the award of bid number 04-3670
in the amount of $3,275,650 for the construction contract with
DeAngelis Diamond Construction, Inc., for the construction of the
North Naples government service center, and to approve a budget
amendment of $746,274.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
MR. MUDD: Skip Camp will present.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Did you want to make a
presentation?
MR. CAMP: Just, that's a straight-up bid. We're taking the low
bid. It was competitive. We had six contractors, and request your
approval.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
124
July 27, 2004
MR. CAMP: Thank you.
Item #100
REQUEST FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TO TERMINATE A CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to item 100, and this
is a request for the Board of County Commissioners to terminate a
contract for the construction of the South County Regional Water
Treatment Plant, contract 01-3174 (sic), and item 12B to be heard
immediately following this item.
Commissioner, this was an item in your absence that I approved,
and I'm asking the board to ratify the decision that I made in your
absence.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
MS. FILSON: Madam Chairman, I'm sorry. I have two speakers
on this issue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, thank you. Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Retract that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'll second it, but I want to
hear a little bit of details to what's going on here.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you like to--
MR. DeLONY: Do you want to hear the public speakers first?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, you can -- you can give your
presentation first. Then if you -- you know, or at least outline it. You
already see where we're going. If you want to just outline it just so
that you have something on the record, that would be great.
We'll hear from our speakers, and then move on.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
125
July 27,2004
For the record, Jim DeLony, public utilities administrator.
Ma'am, the record, as reflected in the executive summary --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MR. DeLONY: -- but we have reached the point where both
time and quality have reached -- in terms of execution of that contract
have been unsatisfactory, and we have recommended to the board that
we terminate said contract, and that's the bottom line.
And the specifics, again, are a part of that executive summary.
And I'd like to hold any other remarks at this time, other than maybe
directly responding to your questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Yes, it was -- you stated it all
in the summary.
Our speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. We have two speakers. Gregory
Galmin will be your first speaker. He will be followed by Bob
Krasowski.
MR. GALMIN: Good afternoon. Madam Chairperson and
members of the board, my name is Gregory Galmin. I am the division
manager for United Engineering.
United Engineering received a Notice to Cure on July 29th, 2004,
for the proj ect that was just mentioned, the south county proj ect. UEC
did not agree with this Notice to Cure and believe that there are
improper grounds for the Collier County's actions; however, upon
receipt of the Notice to Cure on July 29th, 2004, United Engineering
immediately prepared an alternative for completion plan, mobilized
additional manpower, increased project management staff, and
procured all outstanding materials in an effort to expedite the work on
referenced project.
Despite our acceleration efforts, UEC received a Notice of
Termination on July 13th, 2004, hand carried by Mr. Roy Anderson,
public utilities engineering director.
Given the fact that there are countless unprocessed change orders
126
July 27, 2004
worth a few million dollars and hundreds of calendar days time
extension that have been requested and the fact that this proj ect is 96
percent complete and in the start-up phase is not only untimely, but
not justified.
Obviously UEC does not want to litigate our improper
termination, and we still hope to resolve and settle our differences
outside of court to minimize a frivolous lawsuit which will cost the
ratepayers of Collier County and United Engineering a tremendous
amount of money.
Please keep in mind, even if the board members decide to award
the completion of our contract to Wharton-Smith, the project will not
complete any sooner than the completion date noted in our most recent
schedule update; therefore, in our opinion, this termination makes no
sense at all.
In closing, we ask that Collier County and the Board of County
Commissioners postpone their vote to officially terminate and award a
new contract to the Wharton-Smith Construction Company.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: Yes. Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good afternoon, Commissioners and
general public, county staff. My name, for the record, is Bob
Krasowski.
I'm here today essentially to address some of the issues that are
peripheral to efficiency in management in the county.
Much of the insights I've developed are through pursuing an
understanding of solid waste recycling, composting, and those various
things.
These issues fall under the purview of the public utilities
department. And in my pursuit of an understanding, I've come to
notice that certain typical situations have developed.
Earlier I had requested of you that you put on the regular agenda
the award of a $350,000 Malcolm Pirnie contract, which is actually a
127
--'..---.
July 27, 2004
$500,000 Malcolm Pirnie contract. The 350, I guess, is indicated as
the amount that they get, but there's also in there -- it might have been
a typo, but I think what it is, is it actually identifies $500,000, which
would include any costs to them. So you just put another half a
million dollars towards them for this Orange Tree proj ect.
And later under public comment, I'll speak to the details of what
you're spending your money on. It would be better if you put your
money to the sheriff and those great needs there, not consultants on
top of consultants.
But what brings me here to speak on this issue in particular is the
understanding that -- and I have received several emails from Mohem
Thoemke (phonetic), who's a former engineer. And you've been sent
them as well, and so you've read them. I'd respectfully ask if you have
read these? Okay.
And it makes all of this here, among other activities of the county
manager and the public utilities department controversial. So there are
various opinions on what would have been best practices or what is
best practices.
And there are claims in here that there's enormous amounts of
money that could have been saved had we proceeded in other ways.
So my interest is the question, if our resources had been managed
better -- economic resources been managed better, we wouldn't be
squeezing the sheriffs department, squeezing the -- the moneys to
provide staff for the jail as we are now.
I was amazed as the sheriff sat here and his people made a
presentation to you explaining that deputies were becoming ill because
of diseases that had spread in overcrowded situations, yet you're
telling them -- Mr. Halas goes to the -- Commissioner Halas goes to
the budget director in the sheriffs department, well, I don't know what
you do and I don't know what your job is, that's your job, but just cut
the -- cut the costs. And I think they've been cooperative. It's a good
idea to suggest that. They've worked with you. They've cut it.
128
July 27, 2004
But on the other hand, I've seen -- and I'm alarmed at this. I think
we need an independent investigation of this situation. A job's ninety
something percent complete, to switch now, the cost to go on to a new
contractor is identified as $3 million. It's two million -- a little more
than two million to stay with the people that are there. It will develop
into a long-term legal battle, and I think we should try to work it out
right now.
My understanding insights -- and I notice here a team was put
together including Malcolm Pirnie and several others, to look at this
project. My insight has been, in regards to solid waste, that we have
spent over the last three years over a million and a half dollars on
Malcolm Pirnie Consultants, and I know -- I know that some of those
projects could be done by other people, people that we had brought to
the county, consultants from other places that are more knowledgeable
on the tasks in regards to recycling and all that stuff, that type of --
those issues, the RFPs for composting, the RFPs for pyrolysis, the
RFPs for -- Malcolm Pirnie's good if you want a landfill, if you want
to build an incinerator, you know about that. But as far as
implementing recycling, that's a whole other thing.
So I've seen myself -- it's my opinion, it is my perception that
much too much money has been spent on that, and this follows that
same track of excessive expenditures to certain people for work that
we could do -- among other ways, do in-house.
That $500,000 you just released on your consent -- that you
refused to bring on to the regular agenda, under the -- not the consent
agenda, but that other agenda, you refused to honor my request -- that
money could pay for one or two people in-house for years to handle
the tasks that they are assigned, and I'll speak later under general
comment -- other things, public comment.
But for this moment, I don't think you should go along with this.
And we, the public, might have to take action to get inquiry and
investigation legal in the county for this stuff, because you're not
129
July 27, 2004
doing it.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, just some corrections. This is Jim
Mudd, county manager, for the record.
The first thing I'd like to correct in the particular statement that
was just made, we're talking about the difference between enterprise
funds and ad valorem funds, okay, and you can't take enterprise funds
in the water/sewer district in order to offset ad valorem shortfalls,
okay? That's the first thing. So you can't intermingle --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for clearing that up.
MR. MUDD: -- those particular cases.
And the other thing that became quite obvious in that particular--
in that particular statement that was made, there was a statement that
was made, and we brought people in town that you could have
awarded contracts to.
I believe that we was zero -- was Zero Waste Collier County, and
Mr. Krasowski to this day is not a registered lobbyist, okay? And he
comes to that podium, and in his statement just now to you, he
basically said he was lobbying for award of contract. And the record
will show it, Bob.
And I would say at this time, Madam Chair, that Mr. Krasowski
needs to go register upstairs in the Clerk's Office as a lobbyist.
MR. KRASOWSKI: That is totally wrong. If you read the law
about lobbyists, I make absolutely no money. I can advocate -- I am a
political advocate. I am not paid or do derive any money -- yes. I
talked to Senator Saunders about this. He gave me the law, and I
asked him about it. He said, you're not a lobbyist.
So Mr. Mudd, you know, if you want to pursue that, we could
check it out together. We could come to an understanding as to
whether -- but I'm saying that you are 100 percent wrong.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for all of the comments. I'm
going to get back on to the subj ect here, and the subj ect at hand is the
south -- rather terminating the contract at the South County Water
130
July 27, 2004
Treatment Plant that has been languishing for 18 months now, and
we've tried to get the thing started.
And so we have -- we have a motion on the floor from
Commissioner Halas, I think it was. Who made the motion?
MS. FILSON: Second from Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Pardon me?
MS. FILSON: A motion from Commissioner Halas and a second
from Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And a second from Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to say something.
This is not anything that's new. It's been going on for years and years,
and the Board of Commissioners has been aware this project should
have been done a long time ago. And it's not something that just crept
up. That was alluded to.
I'll leave it right there where it is.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Very good.
Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I also believe that all factions of
government that needed to be involved in this project have worked
diligently in regards to trying to come to a resolution on that, and I
believe the Clerk of the Courts has been following this very closely.
So I feel confident that we're on the right path here, that we have
to make sure that we plan for the future, 18 months time line whereby
they surpassed the -- by 18 months. They couldn't get this to
completion, and I feel it's time that we find someone that can bring
this to completion and get this thing up and running before the new
season.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Clerk, did you have anything that you'd like to mention on the
record?
131
._---,,~.,_...
July 27, 2004
MR. MITCHELL: (Shakes head.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That's a 4-0. Thank you.
We move on to item lOP.
MR. MUDD: It's 12 -- you need -- this item on 0 had a -- 12B
was followed -- to follow immediately.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, yes. Thank you.
Item #12B
RECOMMENDATION FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AS THE EX-OFFICIO GOVERNING BODY
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT TO
AUTHORIZE AND RATIFY A LAWSUIT AGAINST UNITED
ENGINEERING CORPORATION AND UNITED ENGINEERING
CORPORATION'S SURETY, NATIONAL UNION FIRE
INSURANCE CO., FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AND
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING FROM MATERIAL
BREACHES BY UNITED ENGINEERING CORPORATION IN
PERFORMING THE CONTRACT FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT 8-MGD RO
MR. MUDD: So we're going to 12B.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, sir.
132
July 27,2004
MR. MUDD: And that is a county attorney item. That's a
recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners as the ex
officio governing body of Collier County water/sewer district to
authorize and ratify a lawsuit against United Engineering Corporation
and United Engineering Corporation Surety, National Union Fire
Insurance Company, for liquidated damages and consequential
damages arising from material breaches by United Engineering Corp.
in performing the contract for the South County Regional Water
Treatment Plant, eight million gallons a day reverse osmosis
expansion contract/bid number 01-3194.
Item lOP to be heard immediately following this item.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
MS. FILSON: I have speakers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Halas, a second by Commissioner Coletta, and we have
speakers.
MS. FILSON: I have two speakers, Madam Chairman. Gregory
Galmin.
MR. GALMIN: I have no further comments.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: For the record, Bob Krasowski again. I'll
just apply my previous statements to this item and say that I believe
maybe some kind of mitigation would be in order before you take
action to -- well, you've already taken action to get rid of the other
people, but before you proceed with this, so I don't like waiving
competition.
There's indication that a lot of hyper excitement is used as a
technique to push proj ects or to make them think they're an
emergency.
You might have remembered 1985, we were all told we were in a
landfill emergency when those people were in here wanting to build
133
...'_.._'.--.-,-~".---_..~.__._--.---,--
July 27, 2004
an incinerator. It was a big landfill emergency. I have it on videotape.
I can show it to you if you want.
I'm sure we need our water. That's coming up. But it's a
complicated issue. We should have some people look into it. But
thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm glad you recognize that
water -- drinking water is important.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, you know -- what, did you think I
didn't? You know, give me a break.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the -- when was this
project supposed to be completed?
MR. KRASOWSKI: I don't know. I think sometime in the
middle of the beginning of this year. I'm not sure. I know there's been
extensions on it. I know it's 96 percent complete. I know it's going to
cost us a lot more money to get rid of it, to cause a switch in it.
You know, I'm just saying due diligence. And once again, I'm
basing my heightened interest and concern over the claims made in
this email. Might be just a disgruntled employee. If any portion of
what's suggested in here is correct, we should be looking at that and
not just letting -- you know, utilities comes up, oh, wonderful, move to
vote. You don't even hear it, like we're in a big hurry or something.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We did look it up. I tell you, I read
everything, I checked with the county manager, I had him answer
things to me, I had him answer things to others. I'm guessing from the
nods, everybody else did too.
So it isn't like we just came in here to vote. There's a lot of
preparation, and I don't mean to --
MR. KRASOWSKI: I would hope so.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- con"ect you on the record, but I do have
to say that I didn't just vote on this thing. I took a long hard look at it,
read everything I could get my hands on, listened to pros and cons
before we got here today.o
134
July 27, 2004
MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, I certainly appreciate that as a citizen
of this community, but I also very much appreciate the process that
allows for public input, for asking questions, to ask for people to
explain themselves in general to the public, especially when there's a
squeeze on budgetary issues.
But sometimes you have to go outside of the house to get a
different perspective and view. This has always been our advocacy on
the solid waste recycling issues, get some fresh ideas, fresh people,
and people that are not encumbered by the infrastructure that exists
here, the special interest groups, and that might be what we need in
this regard to get a fresh outside look at this, because these claims are
-- I mean, you've read them, so it involves many millions of dollars,
and without the accesses, could have covered our budget, and it's just
a -- it's like a pattern now. It's a pattern. And I think it deserves your
attention and -- external attention.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm surprised, Bob. One minute
you take us to the woodshed and you say we ought to do this in-house,
and then the next minute you come up here and tell us that we ought to
get some outside help. So I'm not sure where you're coming from, sir.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, you're the county commissioners, so
you're in-house, you know. So if this is to be done, it would be great
if you were involved in doing this. But if that's not going to happen, I
think someone should give attention to this.
In-house meaning you, not necessarily the county staff, you
know. So that's the dichotomy there. I criticize -- or I make strong
suggestions, and I'm very concerned about the situation. You're
familiar with the material I'm concerned about.
But on the other hand, you know, I try to be positive and
encourage you, once I -- take you to the woodshed. I haven't really
done that. But once I criticize or express great concern, then I like to
135
July 27, 2004
see some -- be positive and hope for action.
I've been a very hopeful person over the years dealing with you
people and the school board on recycling and things like this. And,
you know, we make some progress and not others, but this is serious,
very serious concerns in here, very serious.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Bob, I can assure you that myself
and my fellow commissioners, as Commissioner Fiala said, we've
done -- we've studied this intently. We've got ahold of as much
material as possible, not only by staff but outside, to try to get it --
make it come to a determination in figuring out the best way to
address the problem that we have at hand, but we have to take into
consideration all the people that are going to require water in an
upcomIng season.
And we just squeaked by this year, and this plant should have
been up and running 18 months ago. It's not. If we have to take --
that's what we're charged with and that's why we're here today and
that's why we're -- at this precise moment, we're ready to vote on this
Issue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. I had --
MR. KRASOWSKI: You know, just -- excuse me. I'm sorry.
But real briefly, the -- there are two opinions as to who and what
actions are responsible for the shortcomings in this project, your
project. And that's what I'm saying we might, you know, need some
other input into this.
And excuse me for interrupting you, Ms. Fiala.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's all right.
MR. KRASOWSKI: I appreciate your dialogue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Henning. I think that's
the way --
136
July 27, 2004
MS. FILSON: Coletta.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- it went. Coletta? Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry
about that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's all right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Item #1 OP
RECOMMENDATION TO WAIVE FORMAL COMPETITION
AND AWARD A CONTRACT TO WHARTON-SMITH INC.
CONSTRUCTION GROUP TO COMPLETE THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE 8 MGD RO EXPANSION AT THE
SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT
FOR AN INTERIM AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $3,000,000. -
.AE£R aVED
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now we go to lOP.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. And lOP is recommendation to
waive formal competition and award a contract to Wharton-Smith,
Inc., Construction Group to complete the construction of an eight
million gallon a day reverse osmosis expansion at the South County
Regional Water Treatment Plant for an interim amount not to exceed
$3 million.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
MS. FILSON: Madam Chairman, I have two speakers.
137
July 27, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have two speakers. I have a
motion on the floor by Commissioner Henning, second by
Commissioner Halas, and we have two speakers.
MS. FILSON: The speakers are Gregory Galmin. He will be
followed by Bob Krasowski.
MR. GALMIN: Madam Chairperson, members of the board,
again, my name is, for the record, Gregory Galmin, United
Engineering.
For the record, we disagree with the position that the -- Collier
County has taken with respect to our contract, and their intent to
award Wharton-Smith a $3 million contract to complete our scope of
work.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: For the record, Bob Krasowski. I have
concerns about waiving formal competition, even if -- in this regard.
So that along with whatever else I've said to this point. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on --
MR. CARNELL: Madam Chairman, if I could, for the record,
just get a couple of things --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Certainly.
MR. CARNELL: Steve Carnell, your purchasing general
services director.
One thing I do want to clarify so the public understands, we are
asking the board to waive formal competition, but that phrase formal
competition means something very specific. It means a process of
advertising announcement and a regular process for competition that is
much more protracted and time intensive than we have available here.
With that said, that does not mean we have not had competition
in this process. We, in fact, have. And in making this decision to find
a replacement contractor, if you will, for this job, we have contacted
three firms, and we obtained qualifications and history and reference
138
July 27, 2004
and information on these firms.
Your proj ect delivery team invited these firms in to make
presentations to us and to go through an interview process with -- each
one with the project delivery team, and the firm of Wharton-Smith is
being recommended to you as we feel it is the most qualified firm and
the one that's best suited to step into a very difficult situation and bring
this proj ect to completion.
The other thing to be aware of, we are asking for a declaration of
emergency, but we're also asking that you act in the best interest of the
county as well, and you're able to consider both factors in making this
decision under your purchasing policy. So I wanted to have that on
the record as well today.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Okay. Motion on the floor and a second.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Item #10Q
THE PETITIONER REQUESTS THAT THIS ITEM BE
CONTINUED INDEFINITEL Y. RECOMMENDATION TO DENY
THE REQUEST BY WATERWAYS JOINT VENTURE IV FORA
REFUND OF TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES TOTALING
We move on to -- 10Q is continued indefinitely.
139
July 27, 2004
MR. MUDD: It's continued indefinitely.
Item #10R
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THREE (3) TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY "C-2" GRANT APPLICATIONS
AND THREE (3) TOURISM AGREEMENTS FOR NAPLES
BOTANICAL GARDEN $217,650; THE CONSERVANCY OF SW
FLORIDA $100,000; CITY OF NAPLES $50,000; TOTALING
$367,650 FOR FY 05 AND APPROVE THE COUNTY OWNED
MUSEUM FUNDING REQUEST OF $1,276,900, AND DIRECT
STAFF TO PREPARE AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 92-60 TO
INCLUDE MUNICIPALLY-OWNED MUSEUMS FOR C-2
GRANTS - APPROVED MUSEUM FUNDING - OTHER ITEMS
That brings us to lOR, and lOR is the old 16S2, and this is a
recommendation to move three tourist development category C-2
grant applications and three tourism agreements for Naples Botanical
Garden, $217,650; the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, $100,000;
the City of Naples, $50,000, all totaling $367,650, for FY-'05, and
approve the county-owned museum funding request of$1,276,900,
and direct staff to prepare amendment to ordinance 92-60 to include
municipally-owned museums for C-2 grants.
And this item was moved to the regular agenda at Commissioner
Henning's request.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The reason I requested for the
board to have discussion, this was brought before the Board of
Commissioners the meeting that I had to fly up north, and there was
some concerns raised by Commissioner Coletta in which I agreed
with, but I wasn't present to voice my opinion that -- with the issue
with the Naples Depot, I think that we should put off some of these
140
July 27,2004
things until we resolve that issue, until we know where the -- where
we're going to get the funds. Just a priority of the board, and our
priorities haven't been set yet.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. Wert, would you like to comment?
MR. WERT: Madam Chairman, Jack Wert, tourism director.
Just wanted to point out to the board that the two grants that you
looked at previously for Naples Botanical Garden and for the
Conservancy both went through that competitive process of applying
through the Tourist Development Council, and then we subsequently
brought those to the TDC and to the county commission. And we've
added a third, so that's why we were bringing it back this time.
The City of Naples had also applied for their Naples Preserve
project to bring all of those displays and so forth up and make it a nice
area for people to look at all the ecotourism offerings we have in the
area.
So both the Conservancy -- well, actually all three of those
projects are time sensitive in terms of being ready for next season.
Conservancy certainly wants to move forward so they have this
exhibit ready when season starts, and delay would certainly be a
problem for them.
Also, the Naples Botanical Garden has a number of proj ects that
they're doing display-wise that take a bit of time to build. They need
that time as well.
So the fact that they've been through this process, this is the
process that we've given each of the museums to go through, if they
have projects, to go through this process and be part of the whole
budget process then for the county.
So these three projects really -- although they stand alone, they
are all important to the promotion of tourism in the area, and we'd
certainly like to see those projects go forward so they don't lose time
and miss the season.
And certainly, we could bring back something -- anyone, for that
141
July 27,2004
matter, the Depot or anyone else in the museum business who has a
request for funds through TDC funding, that they could bring those
back as well.
We certainly are limited in terms of the amount of funding that
we have. There is a C-2 category with a specific amount of money
that's designated for that. And with these three projects, we're pretty
well using up those funds, so we would need to do a lot of moving
around and changing of allocations in order to accommodate another
funding project.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you have plenty of funds if
the Depot comes forward?
MR. WERT: No. I'm not saying we have -- I'm saying this --
these three projects that we have currently pretty well expend what we
have allocated for the C -- the C-2 projects for FY-'05.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a speaker.
MS. FILSON: We have two speakers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry. Could we hear the
speakers first, or would you like to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure, sure.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Joe Cox. He will be followed by Sondra Quinn.
MR. COX: Afternoon, Commissioners. Joe Cox from the
Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
I just wanted to thank you for hearing this this afternoon, and
remind you the Conservancy's operated our nature center on
Goodlette-Frank Road since 1982, and we've welcomed over 750,000
visitors, over half of which are from outside of Collier County.
The nature center's a professional museum. We've completed the
museum assessment program, and we're currently pursuing the
American Association of Museums Accreditation Program.
This funding will allow the Everglades, a work in progress
142
---,-----,..
July 27, 2004
program, to go forward. It includes a permanent exhibit, which will
be housed at the nature center, a traveling exhibit, which will tour the
state promoting Collier County and the Everglades, and it will also
provide the Everglades nature festival to be held in April of'05.
This festival will attract visitors to Collier County to really
experience the environmental aspect of Collier County. It will include
Earth Day, it will include a national touring exhibit of Clyde Butcher,
called Visions of Florida, it will include the new Everglades exhibit,
the preserving paradise photo contest, as well as a large array of
ecotours throughout Collier County.
We committed a one-to-one match in this grant process, and
we've already raised 30 percent of that match, and we'll be raising the
rest of that match by October 1 st. Some of that match came from state
funding and some of that match came from private foundations.
The TDC category C-2 grant program's an indication of your
support to the museum community, and it was designed to fund
non-county museums, existing museums that are really promoting the
cultural side of Collier County.
We're also working together, the museum community, to bring
the Florida Association of Museums conference to Naples for the first
time ever, an indication that the state, too, is noticing our cultural
community.
I wanted to thank you for supporting this cycle of the TDC grant
program and to specifically support this TDC grant approved
application. It will allow the Conservancy to develop an exhibit and a
program that attracts visitors to Collier County to experience our
unique environment, and it is a time-sensitive program that -- we're
hoping to be able to complete this project for season of '05. Thank
you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker will be Sondra Quinn.
MS. QUINN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Sondra Quinn,
president and CEO of Naples Botanical Garden.
143
July 27, 2004
I just wanted to remind you all that we are a start-up garden. I
know you've seen me before. And three years ago TDC helped us to
open our first portion of the garden. We've now been open for three
years, and we've gone from 1,000 visitors that first year to 25,000 this
year, so we are growing really, really quickly.
And 50 percent of the visitors -- we have been documenting
everybody who comes -- have been coming from outside of Collier
County. We are a not-for-profit museum. And as the Conservancy,
we are also working towards our national accreditation from the
American Association of Museums.
I also am proud to tell you that we are into this year running our
day-to-day operation on a sustainable basis, so we are earning or
raising the money for the operation.
The funds from the Collier County TDC indicate, I think, a
public/private support that we've talked about in the past, a partnership
with you that helps us to grow the museums here in our county.
And again, as Joe mentioned, we are bringing over 250 people
here from all over the state to showcase our museums in September.
The funds recommended for this special proj ect by the CD B
review committee and the TDC for the Exotic Wodd of Butterflies
Pavilion, which will also include a smalllauroquite (phonetic) aviary
as well as a chrysalis exhibit, and it will demonstrate the importance
of pollination and the relationship between animals and plants in our
environment.
This is going to be extremely important to attract a new group of
visitors, and it's very comparable to the one that they have in Fort
Lauderdale, that -- Fort Lauderdale that has thousands of visitors. So
it provides us with a new family attraction that we can market to the
outside area.
Presently we do have a contract with the CDB, and I would thank
you so very, very much today if you were to approve this
TDC-approved grant, which has been matched by the Garden, which
144
July 27, 2004
would allow us to create this new family attraction and to bring in
additional tourists from the outside. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't have any questions at this
point.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I do have some concerns,
you know, in the fact that we're going to try to make a decision based
upon this, and we've still got the museum or the -- excuse me -- the
Depot coming back, the same consideration. This is a little bit
problematic, you know. I mean, when are they supposed to come
back? Anybody know when they're supposed to be enforced (sic)?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Jim?
MR. MUDD: First meeting in September.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So in other words, if we vote for
this, we exhaust all the funds, there'll be nothing to be able to move
forward with as far as the Depot go~s; is that correct?
MR. MUDD: Jack, you'd have to -- you'd have to tell me how
your fund situation is in TDC.
MR. WERT: We will pretty well deplete the C-2 category with
these three that we're looking at currently . We would also, whenever
the Depot comes through, according to our process anyway, we would
need to take that back through the TDC, so it might be October, really,
before we would have that recommendation, you know, is it a tourism
project, and does it meet the criteria for those C-2 funds.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In October, you're -- it would be
a new year --
MR. WERT: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- with--
MR. WERT: Would be our new fiscal year, and that's when all
these -- right.
145
July 27, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The funds would become
available -- no, we're talking about funds now for October.
MR. WERT: We're talking about October 1 funds --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. WERT: -- correct, for the new fiscal year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And so if we exhaust them now,
why have them come back and talk to us?
MR. WERT: Well, certainly we could change some allocations
in the TDC ordinance to find them from another category. There
might be another category other than C-2 that you might want to
change the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's go back to the museums
themselves, the county museums where our first obligation should
always lie. Where do we come on that? Do we do the funding for
that right across the board, or do we have to cut back on that?
MR. WERT: No. Actually, that's part of this executive
summary. We're actually indicating the one million -- 1,276,900 as
the amount of money that we're allocating in the C-1 category for the
county museum, so that's all part of this --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How far short does that take the
museum budget from where they wanted to be?
MR. WERT: Well, that's -- that's what we projected, and that's
what's been projected, so that is their budget. Now, certainly they
have some unfunded proj ects. But -- and I don't want to speak totally
for them, but they do have those capital projects that wouldn't be
funded anyway.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But what about general
maintenance projects and the ones that they have committed to? I
know there was a bunch of things on the UFR list --
MR. WERT: On the UFR list --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- we're looking to--
MR. WERT: Those were all capital projects though. Their
146
July 27, 2004
day-to-day operations are pretty well covered by this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm kind of concerned about the
fact that we made a promise to Roberts -- on Roberts Ranch that we
were going to do something at a certain point in time as far as
construction goes, and we haven't lived up to that promise, and
meanwhile, we find more ways to keep going farther and farther afield
to spend money.
I don't know if we can call on Ron Jamro, if we put him in a bad
position now or not. I'd like to refresh myself, if I may, just to try to
find out where this whole thing's coming from. Also, too, any
additional information we can get as far as the Depot would also help.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think Ron Jamro -- I can see you're
waiting, Commissioner Halas, and then Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. Did I jump in
front of you? I didn't mean to.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, no. No, you were first.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He changed his mind. He wants
to talk now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I jumped in front of him again.
That's all right then.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Henning was next.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. But I don't know that
Commissioner Coletta's finished.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Coletta, just to try to answer your
question a little bit, there were $3.5 million for the capital dollars on
the UFR list, for capital improvements to the museum system, okay.
A large expenditure was out at Rogers (sic) Ranch in that particular
item. Those were general fund dollars. Those were not TDC dollars
in that UFR side of that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So the -- from the TDC dollars,
what's the difference from what the museum normally would get and
what they got this year? Is it any different?
147
July 27,2004
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, they got what they asked for as far
as their percentage that they get out of the C-2 dollars, according to
the ordinance, and the county did supplement their particular
operation with general fund dollars this year again.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That answers my question.
MR. MUDD: So they have enough money to operate, sir.
They're just a little shy on capital projects that have been languishing
for years, basically your comments.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion to
approve category C-1 for the county-owned museum totaling 1.2769,
for the county-owned museums, and let's bring this back till we get a
broader perspective of what we're going to do with the funds and -- as
far as it goes with the Depot. That's my motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'll second it for
discussion purposes, because I'm not too sure what that's going to
mean as far as when the funds are going to actually be able to be
disbursed and when they have to know as far as Botanical Gardens go
and the Conservancy.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a
second.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I know we briefly discussed the
Depot situation, but I don't think there's anything really in the plans on
obtaining the Depot, is there? I know there's some preliminary
discussions, but maybe the City of Naples -- maybe they can take care
of this Depot matter.
MR. JAMRO: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Ron Jamro,
your museum director. I maybe can shed a little light on that for you.
The discussions are still at an early stage. It's a tremendous
opportunity for the museum to get a presence in Old Naples. We've
148
'''--,--"",,"~,"--
July 27, 2004
always wanted and desired that, thought that would be good for the
entire museum system.
I think Mr. McKee spoke to you. He called it a gateway to the
county museum system, and that's a pretty good analogy.
We're now getting some idea of the cost of what it would -- to
refurbish the building, to mount an operation there, and it looks as
though -- our facilities people are saying there's some repairs that
would need to be -- it could be as high as $200,000 or more in repairs.
If we're renting the facility or leasing the facility, I'm not sure
those are all our responsibility, the county's responsibility. From a
maintenance and operation point of view, probably about 200,000 a
year to start. That includes some exhibit development. Those are
rough numbers, to give you an idea. It's a half a million dollar project.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, I personally -- I'll weigh in on
this as well. I personally feel that we're in the far too beginning stages
of the Depot to penalize the other people who have already been
approved through the Tourism Development Council to stop this from
going forward.
I'd love to see us get the money. I've been -- I've been working
with them myself, and I want to go forward with that, but I think until
we have a plan in place, till we know what we're going to do, till we
find out how much it's going to cost and who's going to share with us,
I don't think we can make any plans now.
So I'm going to vote against this motion.
So I have a motion on the floor and a second to only approve the
portion for the county museum system but let the other ones stand
aside till a later date.
The motion is on the floor from Commissioner Henning, and a
second from Commissioner Coletta.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
149
,-.--.-
July 27, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed? Aye.
Okay. That's a 3-1.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to public comments
on general topic -- no, before I move to that one, let's make sure I'm
clear. I'm just -- what you just voted on is now starting to sink in. Just
a second.
We're to come back -- we're to come back to the Board of County
Commissioners as soon as we have the information on the Naples
Depot to bring those other particular items back to the board for
consideration; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's correct.
MR. MUDD: Thank you.
Item #11
That brings us -- Madam Chair, that brings us to public
comments on general topics.
MS. FILSON: We have two speakers, Madam Chairman, Bob
Krasowski, and he will be followed by John Austin.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Hello again, Commissioners. I've said
much of what I had an interest in saying today on these previous
topics.
I'd just like to touch on some specific information relating to the
-- what I had asked to go onto the regular agenda, but it wasn't
possible to do that, so I'll address it now.
As part of the -- what is listed on the agenda as an expensive
$350,000 to purchase services from Malcolm Pirnie at the Northeast
150
--
---
July 27, 2004
Water Treatment Plant -- I believe that's the one over by Orange Tree,
which is actually in another part of that item in your agenda packet.
On page 2 of that, it identifies the actual cost as being as much as
$500,000. I referred to that earlier.
So what we're doing is, we have here, we're hiring a consultant,
and one of their requirements is to -- out of -- there's 14 bullets that __
what they're going to do to (sic) us for $500,000, 350 to five thousand
-- thousand (sic) dollars.
One of it is they're going to review documents and reports
provided by other consultants related to the project. So we have
consultants on top of consultants, okay?
The beginning items' bullets are, they're going to prepare a
project management plan for the project, they're going to prepare our
project schedules for the project, they're going to assist with
presentation of project budget. What does the staff do around here?
These are items and things that could be done by your adequately
talented and skilled secretaries and administrative assistants in these
different departments. Or if you don't have the people that can do
that, you have here, at minimum, of $350,000 that you're dedicating to
this task that identifies a date to finish the task as May 31st, 2005, yet
there's other areas where there's a possibility of the project going on
longer. I suppose the implication is that maybe these people will stay
with the project.
You've spoken at your budget workshop on how you've
identified certain consultant fees that -- moneys that might better be
spent in-house. And I know we want to keep government small, but
there's a certain reasonableness about keeping the staff small.
But when you start -- and I'm -- I believe now in -- myself, and I
speak as myself today, although I have been involved for years with
the zero waste program, right, as a volunteer citizen, advocate activist.
And when -- the idea of what is to keep government small, I
think, for many people, is an excuse to require the expenditure on
151
---
July 27, 2004
consultants. Consultants love to advocate for small government
because they come in and they can charge an exaggerated rate to do
the job that you could have done for less if you actually brought
somebody onboard.
And I'll tell you that a lot of these consultants don't live here. So
if you're looking for good jobs for local people, pay people that are
here, hire somebody to do the job, don't pay some consultants that fly
off to New York or LA or wherever.
There's a rate sheet here that I don't totally understand, but I'll
draw it to your attention, and I'll talk about it later. But the rate sheet
contract between Collier County and Malcolm Pirnie, the position,
regional technical director, vice president, $260. Is that an hour for
this person? That's what I'm assuming, it's $260 an hour.
Regional practice leader, $220. Location director, 199. Program
manager, program specialist, one hun -- program scientist, $169.
What -- I've seen work done by staffhere, and some of it's pretty
good. You know, I have my criticisms, you have your criticisms.
And the people that we can hire -- I understand engineers make very __
so it's hard to get project managers because they're engineers and good
ones. We only pay them like 40 or 50 or $60,000 a year. Let's bump
up the salary for engineers, bring in proj ect mangers that can work in
Collier County, stay in Collier County, and we'd save a whole bunch
of money, and maybe we'd even approach doing the best thing. You
have people -- you have these consultants with a predetermination.
Giving one example, I was up in Tampa when Malcolm Pirnie,
Steve Suarez was presenting, promoting, pyrolysis, and he was there,
supposed to be our, you know, consultants here on solid waste.
And then one other thing I'll finish up with is that consultant
that's called Red Oak Consulting. It's a subsidiary of Malcolm Pirnie.
We have hired Malcolm Pirnie to do consultant work, and then Red
Oak Consulting has done some work. And I don't understand how that
works. We have the subsidiary of the company working under a
152
July 27, 2004
contract for the company.
And specifically, the listing of all Florida counties and the
comparison of the waste and recycling and services they get, if you
look at that document, it's identified as being done by Red Oak, and
the three names on there identifying as being people of Red Oak are
Daniel Deisch (phonetic), Robert French, I believe, and Steve Suarez.
All these people, you know--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. Krasowski, I do have to ask -_
MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, yeah. I appreciate your letting me
finish up, but -- thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is John Austin.
MR. AUSTIN: Hi. I'm John Austin. I'm here representing the
Coalition for Naples Park, the area association of Naples Park, and I'm
standing in for Fred Turner from the TAG. So it's three groups that
I'm here representing.
The reason I'm here today is Naples Park, Best Friends Park,
okay. I have had emails go to the commission, to Mr. Mudd, to Mr.
Schmitt, Ms. Ramsey, and so forth, and the only ones that gave the
courtesy of returning an email or a letter or a phone call was Mr.
Schmitt and Mrs. Ramsey, not a peep out of anybody on this
commISSIon.
And we -- in that letter we didn't say we're asking. As taxpayers
we are demanding a response for you to prove that Best Friend Park
was or was not part of the Dover-Kohl plan. It has not been answered.
I have sent documentation proving that it was, even right down to
the Dover-Kohl people themselves, and I'll read what they said.
Check those records again. The property now referred to as Best
Friend Park was either clearly stated for purchase or already bought
for park purposes prior to design of charette for the Naples Park
community plan.
Thus, we incorporated it into the plan that it was intended for a
park with or without the large community plan. But there it is from
153
July 27, 2004
them, okay?
Mr. Halas, you were quoted in a letter from Dwight Richardson
as agreeing with him that this should be put on the ballot for the fall in
the Turinger (phonetic) report. You've never retracted that, so you're
on record as saying yes, it should be in the Dover-Kohl plan.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no, no.
MR. AUSTIN: Excuse me. I'm not through, Mr. Halas.
Mr. Henning and the rest of the board, you all concurred that
whatever Frank Halas did, you would go along with him.
And we don't want to hear about how nice it is to have a little
park in the community . We're not arguing about the park. We're here
to say they don't deserve another survey for a project that's already
been voted on, and 76 percent of the residents said no to community
squares, green space and, slash, park, P-A-R-K-S. A duck is a duck is
a duck. A park is a park is a park.
You have not responded to the request -- a demand, not a request.
We're waiting for that, and if we don't get it, we have one other thing
we can do. We can take this up with the state's attorney's office,
because from the get-go of this whole program, there's been a lot of
misinformation, false reports, people making statements that the
majority wanted this, statements from the committee that look like
sunshine laws are being violated.
There are -- records that we asked for has not been sent
deliberately on the part of some people. You don't want the public to
know this evidently.
But anyway, the other thing is, malfeasance in office. Because
you've spent a half a million dollars on a project that five people
convinced you to spend that money on. We deserve an answer to the
76 percent that said yes, the Dover-Kohl plan did include Best Friend
Park.
And I have documents on top of documents, and not one from
this commission that says, yes, it wasn't -- was or was not included in
154
--.'-.-".--.--.
July 27, 2004
the Dover-Kohl plan.
Now, I don't want to stand here and read all those. You got them
already. But you failed to respond. And it says in there, a demand.
We don't work for you. You work for us. We demand proof before
we put the taxpayers to more expense of running another survey.
Now, you dumped this on the parks and recreation committee.
And they responded, all they did is put in there what it said in the
Dover-Kohl plan, because these parks would be green spaces, and that
private industry would build around them.
That isn't the way the people in Naples Park looked at it. They
looked at it from the beginning. Once it said condominiums and
townhouses to be lies (sic) of these parks -- and they were looking at
five or six of them, that they were up in arms. They didn't want that.
That's why they voted heavily against it.
And we're under the impression that this is a foot in the door for
the big builders to say, okay, we've got a park in there, let's buy the
property around it and start the green space, and that will be the return
of the Dover-Kohl plan.
We'll be there fighting it. We're here today, and I would like
someone on this commission to stand up and take the guts or take the
bull by the head and say today, I want to make a motion that Mr.
Austin is right, we didn't poll the people, we've had a survey, and we
want this thing dead.
As you said Mr. Halas, it's dead. First you said you're putting it
on show, then you said dead. And you said, if there was one item in
there that was yes, you would see to it that the people got it. There
wasn't one item in that survey that would make you think that we
should have another survey.
And Mr. Coyle isn't here, but I'm going to take him to task for a
few things he said. And he said he would never be taken by an ad hoc
group again. And he stood before the chambers of the Republican
committee here one night and said, I was taken once before by a small
155
July 27, 2004
group, it won't happen again, he was referring to Naples Park.
And in addition at a commissioner's meeting, he stated he would
never spend another dime on any further studies in Naples Park. He
went back on his word. He's the one, along with you, Mr. Halas, that
instigated having another survey done by the parks and recreation.
And if you go through with it, I assure you the people will want
me to go with this to the state's attorney office and investigate it from
day one, the day Dover-Kohl walked into these chambers and
presented it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Your time is up.
MR. AUSTIN: Excuse me.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't know why you --
MR. AUSTIN: Mr. Olliff warned the commission--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, thank you.
MR. AUSTIN: -- that they should do nothing without polling the
people. That was not done. Thank you.
Item #12A
DIRECT DESIRED ACTION BY THE OFFICE OF COUNTY
ATTORNEY IN TWO CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN
FORECLOSURE ACTIONS ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
ANTHONY J. VARANO, JR., CASE NO. 99-4226-CA AND 00-
3430-CA - MOTION TO FORECLOSE W/MR. VARANO, AND TO
MOVE FORWARD WI SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WI MS.
CAEOL.lli"O - A EEROVED
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now we move on to item 12A.
MR. AUSTIN: No answer?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No answer.
MR. MUDD: 12A is direct desired action by the office of county
attorney in two code enforcement lien foreclosure actions entitled
156
'._"._'-'-'~--_._-
July 27, 2004
Collier County versus Anthony J. Varano, Jr., case number
99-4226-CA and 00-3430-CA.
And Ms. Ellen Chadwell from the county's attorney will present.
MS. CHADWELL: Well, thank you, Mr. Mudd.
Good afternoon, members of the board.
This item was before you last month, and you're probably
familiar with it. It relates to two code enforcement liens that were in
-- the substantive foreclosure fashion that were filed against Mr.
Varano.
At the last meeting we were asking this board to give me -- or our
office direction as to whether they wished for us to proceed with the
foreclosures, whether they would terminate the agreement that was
previously entered into.
At that meeting we were given some direction that -- to offer a
proposal with Mrs. Capolino, who is now the current owner of one of
the original properties owned by Mr. Varano.
We have prepared a proposed agreement. The -- it's not attached
as part of the agenda, but the substance of the letter and the substance
of the executive summary does set forth the terms. It's simply this, is
that she has agreed that she will demolish the structure on the one
property that she bought from Mr. Varano by September 13th.
To that end she has already applied for and obtained a demolition
permit as of last Friday. Should she fail to do that, the agreement
simply states that the county will be -- will proceed with foreclosure.
There will not be an option at that point, if she doesn't remove the
structure and doesn't abate the violation, at which point the county is
to go out and inspect the property, make sure that the violation has
been abated.
She's then to tender the $25,000 plus interest that was -- was set
aside at closing on the parcel, and that will conclude the matter. The
county would then release that property from the lien that it has, and
dismiss her from the foreclosure action.
157
,.-.-".
--~.".
July 27, 2004
As far as the other parcel, which is still owned by Mr. Varano,
when I walked in here last month, he had removed a number -- all of
the vehicles but two travel trailers, and had removed the exotic
vegetation.
I did try to contact him. I don't have any working phone
numbers, although I've contacted his former attorney to that end, and
I've written him letters. And today we just had someone go by the
property just a few minutes ago, and there's been no change since last
month. There are still two travel trailers and some engine parts and
another vehicle out there, so he hasn't abated the violation.
So we presented you with a couple options, namely, you have to
decide if you want to accept the proposal with Ms. Capolino that
would provide that she have an opportunity to abate the violation and
then tender the payment.
As part of the proposal, we have drafted an agreement that would
incorporate the original agreement that this board entered into with
Mr. Varano. So all those terms, to the extent they don't conflict,
would also be part of the agreement with Ms. Capolino.
If it's the board's desire to do that, then I need to know how you
wish to proceed as to the other parcel owned by Mr. Varano. Would
you like me to go forward with the foreclosure? Do you feel -- see
any reason to give Mr. Varano any additional time? If so, then you
need to give me direction.
It's my recommendation that we go forward with the foreclosure
as to that property and that we enter into this settlement agreement
with Ms. Capolino. It is a short period of time, and there will be no
need to come back to the board in the event she does not comply with
this agreement. We will go -- continue on with the foreclosure suit and
be done with it, hopefully.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did Ms. Capolino have a
demolition permit once before?
158
-.,.
~ .'-_.~ ~--"'~,--,--
July 27, 2004
MS. CHADWELL: Yes, she did.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what -- what became of that?
MS. CHADWELL: It existed for about 30 days and then I think
she was -- I was told she was investigating alternatives with obtaining
a building permit, which ultimately she did. But she never removed
the structure in accordance with that demolition permit, so it expired
after a six-month period.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So it expired after a six-month
period, and then what was -- what did Ms. Capolino do at that point in
time? Nothing?
MS. CHADWELL: Well, prior to its official expiration, I
believe she did go and make application for a building permit, so that
was under review.
It had been my position that she -- with her attorneys, that she
was in violation, and -- by not having removed the structure within 60
days. So it made no difference to me whether she pulled a building
permit at that point in time or not.
I think we -- I would defer to her attorneys as far as explaining
exactly the efforts that she undertook. I do remember that I submitted
a letter, and heard Mr. Vasquez speak on her behalf last meeting about
some of the difficulties she ran into in trying to either use the structure
for a new building or to find contractors to evaluate the situation for
her. And since that -- since the last meeting, we have been in contact
with the attorney, and he has worked very -- worked with us.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So the end result here is that
she's pulled another demolition permit. And if nothing is done by
September the 13th, then you -- we're going to give you direction to
go ahead?
MS. CHADWELL: You won't need to -- I will assume that's
your direction today, because by accepting the agreement, the
agreement says I will go ahead if she doesn't comply.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I just don't want to see
159
July 27, 2004
where staff keeps burning up time, you keep burning up our time in
regards to this thing. It's been an ongoing process for a number of
years, so I'm hope -- I'm hoping that now we've got the guideline,
we're going to take care of Mr. Varano, and then if something is not
done on this other property, then we're going to go forward and
address that issue, and we won't see it anymore; is that correct?
MS. CHADWELL: That's correct, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good.
MS. CHADWELL: If you accept the proposed agreement, if she
complies in the time, and you authorize me to go forward with the
foreclosure on Mr. Varano, then you won't see this item again.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we accept this
agreement.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I'm going to second that motion, but
we have speakers.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So we have a motion on the floor to
accept the agreement. Is that how you want it to be worded?
MS. CHADWELL: That's part of it, but you'll have to tell me
what to do with the other parcel.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, and foreclose on it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right now, start the foreclosure
procedure on Varano.
MS. CHADWELL: Okay. The foreclosure has been started --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's part of my motion.
MS. CHADWELL: I will proceed with that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And second. Okay.
N ow we have two speakers, did you say?
MS. FILSON: I have one speaker, Jeffrey Wood.
MR. WOOD: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman, members of
the commission. On behalf of Ms. Capolino, we're going to withdraw
our request to speak at this time. I think that Ms. Chadwell reiterated
160
July 27, 2004
our position perfectly, and as such, she explained to you the heart and
soul of the agreement. So we're going to withdraw our request to
speak at this time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
MR. WOOD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor and a second.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now we have a three o'clock time
certain, so we're going to have to take a break till three o'clock.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, I could talk about some things on 15.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't know that I want to.
MR. MUDD: Let's take a break.
(A brief recess was taken.)
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, you have a hot mike.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats.
Item #8B
RESOLUTION 2004-243 ADOPTING THE SEVEN YEAR
EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR
TRANSMITTAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS (DCA) FOR SUFFICIENCY REVIEW ACCORDING TO
THE PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA OUTLINED IN SECTION
161
July 27,2004
163.3191, FLORIDA STATUTES, EVALUATION AND
Commissioner, this brings us to the last item on the agenda. This
is a time certain item for three p.m.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members. Recommend that the
Collier County Board of County Commissioners, the BCC, approve a
resolution adopting the seven-year Evaluation and Appraisal Report,
the EAR, of Collier County Growth Management Plan for transmittal
to the Department of Community Affairs, DCA, for sufficiency review
according to the procedures and criteria outlined in section 163.3191,
Florida Statutes, evaluation and appraisal of the comprehensive plan.
MR. LITSINGER: Clarification, Commissioner -- I mean Mr.
Mudd. This is a legislative act -- matter. It does not require a
swearing in or ex parte.
MR. MUDD: I stand corrected.
Madam Chair, Mr. Stan Litsinger and Marjorie Student will
present.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. STUDENT: Thank you. All I was going to say -- for the
record, again, Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney, was there
was a glitch on the agenda index, and this item does not require -- it's
not quasijudicial, so it doesn't require ex parte or swearing.
MR. LITSINGER: Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman,
Commissioners. For the record, I'm Stan Litsinger, comprehensive
planning director, and I'm pleased to tell you this afternoon we have
before you the final adoption proposal for your Evaluation and
Appraisal Report on your comprehensive plan. This is the second
Evaluation and Appraisal Report on your plan, and I have to apologize
for it being as voluminous as it is, but we've touched on a great many
topics.
162
July 27, 2004
As you may be aware, this is the seventh workshop, public
hearing, that you've had on this matter, the most recent having been
May the 17th in a joint workshop with the Collier County Planning
Commission, out of which you had recommendations and direction to
staff of what questions to be resolved prior to the public hearings for
adoption of which the Planning Commission had its hearing on July
the 15th.
We will share with you the Planning Commission's
recommendation, the responses, the changes that have been made to
this report since your last workshop. We will also recommend that
you adopt some significant policy direction relative to the EAR report,
and that as a result of today's adoption of this report, we will deliver it
to the Department of Community Affairs for a 60-day sufficiency
review period relative to the report.
Ultimately, we would obviously expect a sufficiency finding
working with DCA, and at which point we would have 18 months to
adopt amendments related to the recommendations contained in the
EAR report.
We handed out, in addition to your notebook where we have
marked with red tabs the corrections, updates, and additional
information that we have added at your direction since your May 17th
workshop, a number of loose items, including your executive
summary .
We also have in this package a memorandum dated July 19th
from Randall Cohen of my staff where we outlined very briefly for
you the recommendations of the Collier County Planning
Commission.
Also attached in the package of distribution materials are the 20
questions -- 20 some questions that were raised by Mr. --
Commissioner Mark Strain at your May 17th workshop, which we
have, working with various staff members, prepared responses to,
which were also presented to the Planning Commission.
163
July 27,2004
And the Planning Commission also voted to recommend
inclusion of all the changes identified in the responses to
Commissioner Strain's proposal.
We also have attached in your package of agenda materials a
letter dated July 1 of 2004 from the Conservancy relative to watershed
management planning and the need to provide more attention to this
issue in our EAR report and subsequent EAR-based amendments, and
in our watershed management planning process, working with the
various agencies, such as water management district, FDEP, and so
forth.
I can report to you that at the Planning Commission, staff did not
have full concurrence on recommendation to support the
Conservancy's proposed changes to the EAR and the subsequent
amendments that will result.
I can report to you that in the past week in discussions with
Ricardo Valera of our staff, the county manager, my staff, and various
people involved in Collier County in watershed management planning
in years to come, that we believe that we have reached an
accommodation.
And we win provide you a copy of the agreed upon language that
we would propose to include in the EAR, and also the Conservancy, I
believe, has a brief presentation, may want to make a few comments
relative to both their proposal and our agreed upon conclusion of
specific items in the EAR report that will eventually become part of
your comprehensive plan in the event that they're adopted as
comprehensive plan amendments.
In the memorandum dated July 19th, from Randall Cohen, we
have encapsulated the recommendations on some key points that were
provided to us from -- by the Planning Commission's recommendation
and as a result of your direction on May 17th.
What I would propose to do in this presentation is to briefly
address a number of what we consider key points and policy points
164
^"-_._--<
July 27, 2004
considered -- excuse me -- contained in this recommendation, and also
to ask for your direction relative to the latitude to apply some
publisher's corrections as we go through the final extensive document
prior to delivery to the Department of Community Affairs not related
to policy issues.
Very briefly, on the second page of your memorandum of July
19th, I'd like to point out a couple of key points which we think we
would like to bring to your attention.
Now, these all consist of the Planning Commission's
recommendations, and they are supported by staff and reflect your
direction following your May 17th workshop with the Planning
Commission.
Very specific and noteworthy would be the change to your
density rating system as part of the EAR-based amendments that
would be identified.
Very briefly to summarize, the density bonus -- bonuses and
density rating system would all be deleted with the exception of
affordable housing density bonuses and also those density bonuses
that have just been adopted relative to your transfer of development
rights program and some additional incentives that you will be seeing
in the next few months relating to that.
This was direction directly from your workshop and also
supported by the Planning Commission and brought forward to you.
Also, the decision relative to maximum residential density in the
coastal high hazard area is addressed and would be proposed in the
report to be capped at four units. Here the base being three units, an
additional unit to be achieved with the affordable housing density
bonus only.
As I had mentioned briefly, we have incorporated the responses
and directions associated with Commissioner Strain's recommendation
and support -- supported by the Planning Commission. We have a
number of what I win call nonsignificant policy issues outlined on
165
-.
July 27, 2004
page 3.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You were -- I hate to stop you __
MR. LITSINGER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- for just one moment though. But we're
also including the transportation concurrency management areas? We
were retaining that, right?
MR. LITSINGER: Yes, ma'am. And as a technical matter,
actually the TCMA in our new concurrency system is actually our
compo plan after the period covered by this evaluation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. LITSINGER: Yes, ma'am. We do not propose any changes
to that whatsoever. In fact, we will note in our analysis relative to the
concurrency section that we had, in fact, adopted significant changes
since the period covered by this EAR as requested by the Planning
Commission.
Also, as noted by the Planning Commission and requested that
we bring forward as a recommendation, would be the continued work
relative to hurricane evacuation and issues associated with a
forthcoming evacuation planning, emergency management planning,
which is underway with Mr. Dan Summer's office, and we'll continue
into the next year, both to identify the inventory of suitable hurricane
evacuation shelters and all matters associated with that activity,
including hurricane evacuation routes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: When was that going to be
addressed?
MR. LITSINGER: The emergency management planning is
underway and is also included with additional contract dollars in your
forthcoming budget for the fiscal year FY-'05.
I would also like to note that, as you may have noted in your
May 17th distribution of notebooks, it included copies of the water
facilities supply work plan. Since that time, the legislature has
adopted House Bill 293, which essentially provided an extra year for
166
July 27, 2004
this planning process and further recommended that these plans not be
submitted officially with the EAR report but be withheld at this time
for continued refinement and work with the South Florida Water
Management District relative to the regional water supply plan. And
we have withdrawn the water resources supply plan as part of this
EAR report.
Also, I would like to point out, as one of the recommendations
that is not specifically an EAR-related recommendation by the
Planning Commission to bring forward to you as a result of your May
17th workshop, but is certainly germane to the issue, is the matter of a
policy decision relative to advertising to adjoining property owners in
the manner that we do for planned unit development, PUD, rezones in
the area of growth management plan amendments.
This, in the memorandum from Mr. Strain, is his first
recommendation, and the Planning Commission supports that.
Here, again, that is not technically an EAR issue and probably
would not be reflected in a comprehensive plan amendment, but
would be a policy issue.
How I would propose to proceed at this time is I would like to
introduce the changes to the July 1 letter from the Conservancy
relative to watershed management planning, which staff is in
agreement with, which is also consistent with the Planning
Commission's recommendation, and ask that the Conservancy make a
few comments on that.
We also have Ricardo Valera here from our drainage stormwater
management program relative to the agreement that has been reached
and our confidence in including these recommendations in our EAR
report.
After that, I would propose to open it to questions by the Board
of County Commissioners relative to the broader document that we
have or any of the summary comments and reflections of the planning
commission that we'd offer to you as proposed inclusions in your EAR
167
-_.".-_._.^~~"£_.~--
July 27, 2004
report to be adopted today.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Probably what I'll ask is if, in between us
asking any questions and your presentation, we'll get -- we'll hear the
speakers, and I think that will move it along a little bit, if that's all
right with you.
MR. LITSINGER: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. How many speakers do we have?
MS. FILSON: We have five speakers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. LITSINGER: I would propose, ma'am, that we have the
presentation briefly by the Conservancy relative to their
recommendations on the watershed management planning process and
the proposed changes, and some possible comments from Ricardo
also.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. DAVIS: Madam Chair, members of the commission, my
name's Gary Davis with the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. I'm
going to be very brief about this.
First of all, I do want to thank the planning staff and the
stormwater staff and the natural resources staff for working with us on
this issue.
This first came up and we brought it up in the workshop that you
had on the EAR a couple of months ago, whereas, you know,
objective 2.1 of the CCME says that by January 1st, 2000, the county
shall prepare watershed management plans that will address
appropriate mechanisms to protect the county's estuarine and wetlands
system.
And as you know, those have not been done, and we're trying to
be very positive and constructive about how to achieve those
watershed management plans, because we think that they're very
important for a number of reasons.
Watersheds provide services, if you want to call them, to all the
168
July 27, 2004
residents of the county, they provide water supply, they provide the
fish that people like to watch in the Gulf, and watersheds are
extremely important in terms of flood control, too.
So for all those reasons, we need to plan our watersheds and how
they are protected and how they are managed in this county.
So another reason, too, is that our water quality has suffered in
this county as we have increased development through the year. And
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has evaluated our
waters in the county and has found that several of them currently do
not meet water quality standards.
And as a result of that, there will be developed what's called total
maximum daily loads in 2007, which we can get ahead of if we go
ahead and start working on these watershed management plans so that
we control our destiny when it comes to protecting water quality
rather than having it imposed from Tallahassee. So those are the main
reasons why we brought this forward.
The changes that we have made to our initial proposal of
language are fairly minor, but they have satisfied the staff. One
particular issue we have taken out is the sea grass survey issue. That's
something that we can deal with in another forum. So I think we've
satisfied the staffs concerns.
I will point out that the Planning Commission did vote 5-0 to
recommend our language, but we have modified it to satisfy the staff
concerns.
If there are any questions, I'd be happy to address those.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So now, with the modified language,
Conservancy is giving their nod of approval; is that correct?
MR. DAVIS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It says here the policy 1.6.3
permits the county to use a three-day, 25-year storm event on a
discharge rate standard. Is that a universal statement for all of the
169
-"~-"... ...."----.--..... ...-.-.----..
July 27,2004
inhabited parts of Collier County, or is this something that's specific to
a particular area?
MR. DAVIS: Commissioner, that was not addressed in our
watershed management plan issue. The watershed management plans
would, of course, be consistent with other parts of the Collier growth
management plan. They would have to be.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So this is a general statement
and it doesn't really reflect upon any particular area?
MR. DAVIS: I'm not aware of that, no.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Where is that in there? The page we just
got?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, the page that we got, on
the second page over.
MR. LITSINGER: Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The last part underlined, the
county also recommends the policy be revised, from that point down.
MR. LITSINGER: Commissioner, I might make a comment on
that. The 25-year, three-day event is their adopted standard relative to
maintenance of our drainage system's level of service standard, and
our construction program and also our maintenance program is
directed at maintaining that level of operational efficiency.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. One more time, I'll try
this. It's not specific to one particular part of the urban area or the
rural area?
MR. LITSINGER: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. That's what I
was trying to get to.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's county-wide.
MR. DAVIS: Any other questions?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, thank you.
MR. DAVIS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm glad that you guys are working so
170
July 27, 2004
well together and, you know, finding points of compromise. That's
great.
MR. LITSINGER: At this point, Madam Chairman, I would
either propose that we go to public speakers, or we can take questions
from the individual commissioners relative to specific questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let's go to public speakers first. Yes.
MS. FILSON: We now have six speakers. The first one being
Bob Murray.
MR. MURRAY: I'll waive.
MS. FILSON: He'll be followed by Sam Durso. Mr. Durso will
be followed by David Ellis.
DR. DURSO: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Dr.
Sam Durso. I'm here as president of Habitat for Humanity of Collier
County. Been doing this for 11 years now.
I'd like to comment on a couple of things regarding affordable
housing. One is the density bonus by right, and the other is the
maximum density of four units per acre in the coastal -- coastal zone.
In actuality Habitat for Humanity has three large projects in the
coastal zone already; Victoria Falls, which is complete, which is 110
homes; Charlie Estates, which is 120 homes, which will be completed
in the next six months or so; and the third project, which has already
been approved, which is Henderson Creek or Artesia Point, and that's
206 units. But those will not --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What about the Greenway; is that also in
the --
DR. DURSO: No, Greenway is not in the coastal high hazard
zone.
So that's going to come back to you later on. But those three
proj ects are already approved, and they're already -- they'll be
completed, and that's about 600 homes.
In the past we've always built four units an acre, which is what
we do for single-family homes. The project at Henderson Creek is
171
-..,..
July 27, 2004
actually going to be six units an acre, and that's going to be our new
product, which will be attached villas, which essentially will be
duplexes.
The reason we went to this is because of the high land costs, and
those -- the land for that proj ect will still be costing us 35 to $40,000 a
unit even though we're doing six units an acre.
So my only fear is we probably -- we do not have any other land
in the coastal zone right now, and we actually have 13 -- the land for
1,300 lots in our inventory right now. So we're quite proud that we've
able to buy that much land. Now, about half of it's in Immokalee and
half of it's in the Naples area.
It all needs to be rezoned, so we're going to be coming before
you to get all that land rezoned. Obviously, we also would like to
pursue some land in the rural lands and use the TDR program, and
that's going to be discussed later on. And I think I've already talked to
most of you about getting a density bonus for affordable housing out
there, and we'll talk more about that later on after we use the TDR
program.
But we probably, because with -- if this goes through -- and it is
-- I assume it is going to go through, we probably will not build any
more in the coastal zone, and it just takes some land away from us, but
it's not land that we own right now. It means that you will probably
have to give more density in other areas of the county, because
affordable housing does have to be built somewhere.
So we just want you to be aware of that. So it doesn't create
tremendous hardship for us but -- because we didn't have any plans to
do it anyways, but it does mean that we will not be able to look for
land in those areas.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sam, how many -- with the 600 new ones
coming into East Naples, how many, all told, does that make it in East
Naples?
DR. DURSO: If you count -- Naples Manor is 190, so it would
172
-~
July 27,2004
be 190 plus those 600, that's about 790. And we're talking -- that will
be done by -- maybe four years from now those will all be done. So
four years from now we'll have --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is that including Greenway as well?
DR. DURSO: It doesn't include Greenway. Greenway will
probably be another 180, so --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So a thousand --
DR. DURSO: -- 900 to 1,000 units --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- within East Naples.
DR. DURSO: -- in the 41 area, right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
DR. DURSO: So that doesn't affect us a lot, but at least you have
to know that.
The density bonus by rights would make it easier for us, but
we've yet to buy a piece of land that we hadn't had to come before you
anyways. And I can't see us buying a piece of land that we don't have
to come to you for anything, for a PUD or for something. It's just the
way we develop land. We don't buy land that's already approve for
housing.
So even though it would make it a little bit easier, it's not going
to keep us from coming before you. We're still going to come before
you all the time anyways. So it doesn't really affect us very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I think with 1,000 of them there, it's
good that we branch out to other areas. And 1,000 in one small mile
long area is an awful lot, don't you think?
DR. DURSO: Well, but it's not a mile. It's about a seven or
eight mile area. And it's getting -- you know, between Naples Manor
and Greenway Road is about six -- maybe six miles, so it's spread out.
You know, and we still would like to find more land on 41 in the
rural area as you go farther out, and I think we'll have to because there
is going to be some development there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think we have to find plenty more land
173
---....-
July 27, 2004
because --
DR. DURSO: Right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- you've got such a good project. I'mjust
saying that I'd love to see it dispersed a little bit.
DR. DURSO: Right. And we're trying. As you know, we do
have a piece of land on Immokalee Road, which we bought with your
help last year. We just closed on a piece of land this week on 951 as
part of the San Marino PUD. It's across the street from Naples
National Golf Course. I've talked to you all about that.
Also we're going to be going for a compo plan amendment, and
we're doing a joint venture with a for-profit builder, and essentially it's
inclusion of rezoning. He's going to do the upscale housing, and we're
going to do affordable housing for him in that development. So that's
another piece of land that's farther out.
We also have gotten a verbal agreement on another piece of land
in Immokalee that I hope to sign tomorrow. So we -- my point is, we
have lots of land going forward, okay. What we need for -- and we've
done a great job, and I -- you folks know that. We're the second
largest in the country, both by the number of houses built per year and
by the total number of homes.
Let me just finish. But the need is tremendous. There's a need
for 20,000 units in this county. We can do more. We did 120 houses
this year. We can get to 150 houses a year very easily.
What we need from you are two things; one, continue in
approving of our zoning requests, which you folks have been doing,
you've been very supportive of.
The other thing that we need is a, kind of new subject. Up until
today impact fees in this county for us for the last 11 years have been
paid for with SHIP funds. That is no longer true.
In Immokalee you have a program in effect now which we're
going to use for deferral of impact fees, and that's how we're going to
build our houses in Immokalee.
174
'._~-
July 27,2004
But in Naples going forward, there is no program. So we need
you to direct staff to come up with a program similar to Immokalee for
affordable housing in Naples. If you don't do that, then we have to
pay $15,000 per house impact fees.
If we have to do that, we're out of business. I mean, we're going
to build a lot less houses, and our donors are obviously not going to be
very happy to support us if they think we have to do that.
So we'd love you to direct staff to come up with some kind of
proposal over the next six months or so for affordable housing in the
Naples area, and I would say --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sam?
DR. DURSO: -- maybe just go up to 60 percent of median
Income.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have to kind of stop you. I'm sorry.
DR. DURSO: Right. I'm done, thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is David Ellis. He will be
followed by Brad Cornell.
MR. ELLIS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
David Ellis, and I work for the Collier Building Industry Association,
and here today more in the capacity as I also chair your Affordable
Housing Commission.
I really agree with Sam. Of course, I always love to hear Sam
speak. I'm on his board, and I always expect him to be in to pass that
law, loves to raise money or do something, but he always has such a
positive message.
Sam really is a great example of what can be done through our
affordable housing programs, and he's really become a master through
his organization of making things happen.
When Sam talked about the things he was able to do in the
coastal high hazard area, most of those project, again, we were able to
do at four units per acre. We're not going to be able to do that as
175
-~
July 27,2004
Habitat, and certainly any other developer that might be serious about
affordable housing will be limited there.
Now, I understand the reasons why you're doing that, but it does
create a pressure. And I think something we have to just acknowledge
and be kind of thoughtful about, really now if you're looking to
affordable housing to get the density bonuses and things, you're more
or less in your mind, if you could imagine, it's really U.S. 41 to 951, in
that sliver that we have left, and we can really probably make it
happen, and you guys know, there's just not land available in that area.
So as a result, those that are really serious about doing affordable
housing development are really going to have to scramble for their
opportunities in that area.
And I say that acknowledging, knowing that you were probably
going to do this restriction in the coastal high hazard area, and for
good reasons, for public safety and others, but know that we're
creating an additional pressure that we're going to need to try to
compensate for in other ways.
As we talk about that also, we talked about the buy right zoning
concept, and we said, as a community in what we're kind of sending to
DCA, it says, we're going to continue to work on that concept and try
to come up with things that work.
You know, I realize that's going to be a challenge in other ways
to really try to come together with some language that we can all
probably feel comfortable with.
As much as that, I'd like us really to develop kind of a buy right
attitude at least as we approach affordable housing in Collier County.
We've acknowledged many times, if we ever want to draw a crowd
down here, all we have to say is, we're going to build affordable
housing, and it concerns a lot of people.
But we really need to be serious about taking that buy right
approach if we can do that, particularly knowing the limitations that
we have on affordability.
176
~-,._-
July 27, 2004
I'd also agree with my friend Sam, what he said about impact fees
in the non- Immokalee area. That's a real problem for everyone that's
doing affordable housing now. We're going to need to make sure we
address that properly.
The Affordable Housing Commission's taking a look at that. But
any direction you can give to your staff to kind of empower them to
move ahead with that would be very helpful to us.
And lastly, as I've mentioned -- or Sam mentioned, on the TDR
program, there was a workshop last week, and one of the things we
did talk about was accommodations or extra credits in that fringe area
for affordable housing. That will be coming to you in the weeks to
come.
Take that very seriously. When you do that, ask people like Sam
Durso, will this work for you, and if it doesn't, how can we make it
work for you? Because that fringe area, there are places in the fringe
where affordable housing and where housing is appropriate and should
be encouraged, and anything we can do to accommodate it, that's an
area that we are very limited in right now.
And if we can create some opportunities there, perhaps, we can
compensate for other opportunities we've lost in more urban area.
Thank you, Commissioners. Again, I -- more than anything,
when we talk to developers -- and guys like Sam are different because
he really understands our system. When people come to Collier
County and talk to us about affordable housing, they always want to
know, what's the mood? You know, does it work here? Is the
community committed to it?
And you, as commissioners, have done a number of very
wonderful things working towards affordability, encouraging the
HDCs, some of the other things.
We need to continue to make sure we're putting a very positive
face on affordability so we can attract those that will come and build
that type of housing for our workforce, for the people that work for
177
July 27,2004
you here in government and to really make our community a better
place to live.
Thank you, Commissioners.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Brad Cornell. He will be
followed by Gary Davis.
MR. CORNELL: Hello, Commissioners. I'm Brad Cornell with
Collier County Audubon Society, and I'm here to support the language
that I have just been reading through, that the Conservancy and your
staff have worked out on watershed management planning. The
Collier County Audubon Society's very supportive of this language
and hope to see it in there. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Gary Davis?
MR. DAVIS: I've already spoken.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Doug Fee, and that's your
final speaker.
MR. FEE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my
name is Doug Fee. I'm with North Bay Civic Association. And first
of all, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak today in
the process that we've been through the past -- well, your staff has
been through it probably the last year, the public has been involved for
at least four meetings.
A lot of future decisions are being made here. And in regards to
the Conservancy and the issue of the watershed plans, our board,
North Bay Civic, as well as another organization called the Estuary
Conservation Association, we are in support of the language that is
before you.
Obviously the -- one of our most -- the best asset we have here is
the waterways and obviously the beaches, and anything we can do
from a proactive standpoint to regulate and make sure that we keep
our waterways for the future safe and clean -- so we do support that.
The second issue -- and I'll be brief here -- and that is the density
in the coastal high hazard. And I put on the teleprompt (sic) a page
178
'---^'--""-
July 27, 2004
out of the EAR report that's been presented to you. It is page 2.22.18.
And I just want to clarify.
We had attended the meeting in May in regards to the Planning
Commission and the commissioners. And I have in front of me the
transcript, just the brief ending of that, and it says here, David Weeks
stated, the only two density bonuses that still apply are affordable
housing, which applies anywhere but in the coastal high hazard, with
only one unit per acre bonus with a cap of four, the other density
bonus is conversion of commercial for non- PUD commercial zoning,
which will still give 16 units per acre but not applicable in the CHHA.
And I just want to -- real quickly here, in the information that is
on the Web site that the citizens, the community, is able to read, the
policy does state the elimination of those density bonuses, but the
report itself, as it was produced three or four months ago, it may still
indicate that those bonuses are in there.
So I just wanted to make sure that, in these proceedings that, in
fact, this rating table, will that be changed according to the policies
that are --
MR. LITSINGER: Yes, Commissioner. That will be changed
based on the Planning Commission's direction and your direction and
the discussion and the content of the executive summary prior to the
transmittal to DCA.
MR. FEE: And that's my comment. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have any further presentation from
the staff?
MR. LIT SINGER: No, ma'am. We're open to your questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And that's all the speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Then we close the public hearing.
And now we can go to questions.
Let's see. Commissioner Henning, I think you were the first.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta's first.
179
"'---
July 27, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, thank you. I have to, once
more, express my dismay over the direction we're taking on affordable
housing and using the coastal high hazard area as the reason for it.
We had come before us our manager of emergency management
and tell us that there was no problems, that it was something that could
be worked around. We had people come from our transportation
department and say it was no problem, and I see it as simply a red -- a
way to redline the whole coastal area to prevent possibly a service that
will never be required again in that area because of the cost of land,
and I really resent it.
I'll support affordable housing wherever it can go in Collier
County. It's just something I wanted to get up real early in this
meeting. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I'll just counter that with, one of the
things that -- I don't see why we should protect the condominiums
along the coastal high hazard area and keep the density down and why
we should allow affordable housing. Why is it good for one and not
the other?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, why not just say you can't
build anything in the high hazard area and put a moratorium on all
building until hurricanes go out of fashion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, that's kind of silly, but--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly, it is silly.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- why should we give extra -- why
should we give extra density bonuses in an area that's already
considered a hazardous zone?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: See, I don't understand that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We can call emergency
management back up, and we can ask the same questions over again
about the danger that's -- that would come from hurricanes and what
180
--........
July 27, 2004
could happen.
We've been through this little exercise before, and the emergency
management agreed that there was a minimal risk for this type of
housing in the area. We also did the same with transportation. We
heard the same thing at that time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We were talking over in the Vanderbilt
area though, I think.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, we were talking the whole
high hazard area.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay.
Commissioner Henning, were you next?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure. I'm glad Dr. Durso is
here.
That one thing that I want to talk about during the
commissioner's comments is something I've been discussing with the
county manager, other agencies, and how to assist affordable housing
in the cost of construction in Collier County. So I just wanted to
apprise the Board of Commissioners on that.
It's a great opportunity. I think we're going to get to
commissioner's comments shortly.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm not quite sure what you said.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll tell you later.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: One area that I've had concerns
about on the EAR study, and that is hurricane preparedness. Some of
the areas that I'm concerned about is -- and it kind of falls in line with
just the discussion that we just had here a moment ago, and that is the
survey indicates that there will be about 273,000 people that will be
estimated to be here in October.
And if we had a hurricane at that point in time, 192,000 would
leave via the road system, which we have no study for as far as the
level of service.
181
July 27,2004
A couple of times I've asked the transportation department just
exactly how we would address this issue, and I think there's something
in regards to money being set aside to do a study, but I have very good
-- great concerns about it.
The other thing is, we're building a lot of schools here, high
schools with auditoriums, and do we really know what the wind load
factor is on those auditoriums, especially when you put in people that
are -- greater than 300 people?
I think there was -- there was some criteria in there where they
want to lower the wind load on the schools.
And another area that I have concerns in is that some of our
shelters -- most of our shelters would be adequate if we have a
category one hurricane. But once we get into a category two
hurricane, then we start losing these shelters.
And so what happens if we get into a category three? And these
items haven't been addressed in the EAR report yet, and I have great
concerns about it. And can you shed any light on this? And
especially, like I said again, I'll just reiterate that, if we have a lot of
people here in October or September -- and to try to get these people
out of here.
And I know I've heard terms about what we're going to __
evacuations done at certain period of time. I don't buy into that. I
think we realize that this community has never been faced with a mag
-- a large storm of any magnitude since 1960.
And I'm really concerned at trying to direct people that's never
been through something like this in that period of time, that they're
going to follow directions. So I really need to know what we're doing
as far as shelters.
Do we know what the wind load factors are on these schools? I
guess that's another question. And if we don't, we ought to find out
what it is. And we also ought to find out if we can come up with some
type of direction where we have both private and commercial and
182
---,.~
July 27, 2004
governmental people working together maybe to come up with
something similar to Teco Arena or something of this nature.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner -- Joe, you asked for the wind
speeds, okay, and then I'll get to the second part.
MR. SCHMITT: You get the second part, because I know some
of it has to do with schools and connects and emergencies shelters.
Just to be brief, for the record, Joe Schmitt, administrator of
Community Development/Environmental Services.
All buildings in Collier County have to be built to the current
Florida Building Code standard, which is 140 mile an hour wind load.
There was some discussion that shelters in the coastal high hazard
would be built to 160.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 160.
MR. SCHMITT: But the criteria is 140; 140 is designed, you
know, with a category four hurricane.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's with -- also you're going
to house 300 people or over?
MR. SCHMITT: I cannot talk any specifics in regards to
shelters. I'll have to defer that to emergency management in regards to
the plans for shelters. Go ahead.
MR. von RINTELN: For the record, Jim von Rinteln from the
emergency management department.
Depending on the shelter, we can house in some cases up to
1,500. It's on a square footage proration. So it really depends on the
shelter we're talking about, which high school, et cetera.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But what I'm getting at is that we
have some shelters that are in category one flood zone. If we have a
category two or three, I think Barron Collier then would no longer be
considered a shelter if the storm category was two or greater; am I
correct in my assumption?
MR. von RINTELN: Yeah. The greater the category, the less
shelters we have in Collier County, that's correct.
183
-.....'-.-
July 27, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And are we going to have a
determination of the level of service if we have 273,000 people living
here in October?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, and we're going to redo -- we're going to
redo that particular plan. I will tell you from what I know since I've
been here, emergency management budget has been done on a
shoestring for a very long time, okay?
There are counties all over the State of Florida that have separate
millage rates that are set aside for emergency management, some as
high as one mill in order to build the shelters.
All we have to do is go to Lee county and we can see that they
have dedicated funds and a tax rate in order to build those shelters in
addition to what the school system has to do.
Whenever I meet with the county manager in Lee County and
whatnot, he says, you guys don't have any shelters. You don't come
see me when you've got a hurricane. I'm going to be filling up my
own.
What I've asked Dan Summers to do is to take a look at all the
particular schools that are coming onboard. Anybody that's bringing a
gymnasium on or whatever, for instance, Ave Maria University, take a
look at their dorm structure that they've got, see if we can get into any
of those discussions with the developers there that we can -- that we
can help out on.
Some of the things that Jim just preclu -- or just alluded to in the
fact that you can house up to 1,500, but if you can't air-condition the
place for 1,500, you've got yourself a swamp inside the building
because -- because it's humid when you have that hurricane, and if
you've got all those people sitting in there and you don't have any kind
of air handling capacity because you don't have a portable generator
system where you can't isolate that building so that you can
air-condition it, you've got unusable space because it's untenable.
People just can't stand it anymore. It gets so close in there that, you
184
July 27, 2004
know, you want to come out of your skin.
So we're taking a look at those particular cases. I've asked Mr.
Summers to go out there with any developer that's coming in -- and
I've used Santa Barbara Road as the road. Everybody that's east of
Santa Barbara, if there's a development that's coming in that has to do
with a community building or whatnot in a PUD per se, to look at that
building and see if we can work out some arrangements with the
community that's there, if we can use that particular shelter or that
particular building as a shelter, because then you're getting farther
away from the coast and you get yourself into a better -- better
situation.
We're trying to take a look at that without having to come back to
the board with an increase in millage in order to fund a separate
program. I've asked Dan to do that. He's working through that
process.
And we've had Tindale and Oliver come back and do a report,
and I've asked them to go back and take a look at an alternative where
we get a community and government partnership, that's what I'm
talking about for shelters, so that we can take care of the taxpayers of
this county in case there's an emergency that goes on.
But I will tell you, those don't exist right now. They haven't
existed in a very long time, and we're trying to get ourselves up to
speed as far as our emergency preparation is concerned.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Jim, would you also find out what
the wind loads are on the existing schools? I know the new ones,
obviously, have to withstand higher wind loads. But on some of the
old schools.
MR. von RINTELN: And I have that information. It does vary.
Some of the older schools are less. We've been involved in a retrofit
program over the last eight years to try to upgrade particularly the
areas that will utilize these shelters. Maybe not the whole school, but
the gymnasium in the areas --
185
July 27, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Gymnasiums.
MR. von RINTELN: -- to try to bring it up to 140.
MR. SCHMITT: The older -- the older standard is 120. That
was some -- most of the schools built probably, at least two years ago
or earlier, were built 120 miles an hour just as most homes. That was
the old Florida Building Code, was 120, then went to 140.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we are retrofitting the schools
or auditoriums according to that?
MR. von RINTELN: And those older schools, in many cases
we've gone in and retrofitted up to the higher standard. We continue
to do that, to the schools that are not in the surge inundation zone, so
the ones that we're more likely to open as shelters.
I do have information on each school, and we do have a good
idea of what wind loads each one will take.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The only that I'm concerned
with is that if we direct people to go to a shelter and we have a
category two or three storm, then we're right on the ragged edge as far
as wind loads go when you start putting in 300 and above people, up
to 1,500, and so I've got concerns there.
MR. von RINTELN: And that's something we looked at with
each storm, and we would never open a shelter that wasn't secure for
that particular storm.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Where would you put the people
then? Because you don't have adequate shelters.
MR. von RINTELN: For a large storm, like a category four or
five, is it --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Even a three.
MR. von RINTELN: A three we'd only open the shelters that
would withstand those winds and that surge, and we would encourage
people to evacuate, and we would encourage the evacuation early on.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Again, that takes it back
where we've got 273,000 people and figuring out level of service on
186
--
July 27, 2004
the road.
MR. von RINTELN : Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Oh, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Once again on evacuation
and hurricanes, I think one of the things we're all looking for is the
information to be able to make public so that the public has a right to
make these decisions, what their best option is. I mean, we don't want
people at the last minute to go to the wrong location thinking that
shelter's going to be open.
We want people to know that if they're going to get on the roads
at a certain point, they can expect a 6-, 12-hour delay, so they're going
to have to leave early. That's information that we need to put forward,
and the public's going to have to be responsible enough to look at it
and be able to make logical decisions.
That's why we're looking for this information. We're never going
to be able to correct the situation that we're going to provide shelter
for everyone in Collier County. Never going to happen.
But I think we owe it to ourselves and we owe it to the public to
just get -- assimilate the information so people can make logical
choices.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Remember that plan you came up with a
few years ago?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, yeah, help your neighbor.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, help your neighbor. Anyway, thank
you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It might still happen.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a few questions myself.
The -- first of all, or the first thing I wanted to say is that I'm very
happy to say that you in the Conservancy have worked out an
agreement, and I would like to incorporate that into our final motion
when we get there.
187
July 27, 2004
The second thing is, I really am pleased with all of the
recommendations that the CCPC gave to us, and I'm glad to hear that
they will all be incorporated, and that should be in our motion as well.
One of the things though, on the page -- bottom of page 3 on the
-- or page 6 of 63, whichever you want to refer to -- these are the
CCPC things -- we're talking about hurricane shelters again, and it was
saying that -- they were talking about the inventory, and they were
going to reflect that existing shelters need to meet the requisite design
standards, but then it said, if not, the new policy shall reflect the
corrective measures that should be taken to address existing hurricane
shelter deficiencies. But in there it says nothing at all about a timeline
or a deadline, and I feel that that ought to be included.
MR. LITSINGER: Yes, ma'am. That is the -- what your EAR is
about. You are making the statement in your EAR report relative to
the programs that are ongoing, some of the distance we need to cover
in all areas, inventory, evacuation times and so forth, that you will
address this in EAR-based amendments that we will now develop over
the next 18 months upon the finalization of this report.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good.
MR. LITSINGER: You're having knowledge that you will, in
fact, reflect those in the form of compo plan amendments to bring
those up to standards that you want.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So time line --
MR. LITSINGER: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- and a deadline would be included?
MR. LIT SINGER: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. On the top of page 4, just a tiny,
tiny little thing. That first sentence in there, I think you probably
mean needs to be revised to change the September date, but it says
"chage", so I --
MR. LITSINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- I would guess that's what you want to
188
--.
July 27, 2004
do.
Then as far as Mark Strain's issues in here, I can see where many
of them are already being incorporated into this. One of the things
that -- and I was happy to see that Commissioner Halas brought up
these things as far as the schools and the miles per hour.
I wanted to ask Joe Schmitt if he thinks that we're -- we're
prepared for a hurricane, or what you think of our hurricane
preparedness.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Toss the ball out.
MR. SCHMITT: Do I have a shovel so I can dig the hole I'm
going to go into.
In what way, ma'am?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I just want you to -- I want to be
assured that you feel that where we are today and where we're heading
is the right direction. Do you feel that -- or what do you think of our
hurricane preparedness?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, from a standpoint of the building codes,
we've been enforcing those codes for at least two years. So those are
-- in performing the appropriate inspections to deal with the
construction to maint -- to assure standards. So in that regard I'm very
comfortable.
In regards to planning or other activities, I would really have to
defer that to Dan Summers. As Jim and I were just talking, of course,
the issues with the schools and the new schools, but even as Mr. Mudd
mentioned with partnerships, probably most of the developers are
going to be looking for some kind of a cost share.
F or instance, if we want to go out to the eastern part of the
county and look at Ave Maria, of course, when they design for a
structure or a shelter and cots and all the other type of things that
would have to be readily available, there's probably money being
sought from the county to pay for those things.
But I really have to defer that to Dan -- Dan and -- Summers and
189
July 27,2004
Jim and his -- the team down in emergency management in regards to
the planning in preparedness. But as far as -- in regards to
construction standards and the things that we're doing, I'm comfortable
with what's being enforced today.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, okay. Very good. Let's see. I had
a few more things here.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, you're on the -- you asked Joe, but I know
a little bit more about it than he does on this particular juncture.
Codes are better, our sets kits and outfits that we need for
evacuees -- you remember we told you -- we came forward last year
with a quarter of a million dollars to purchase? We brought it to you
in April of this year in order to start that. We had 34 kits. I think we
needed some 10,000 kits, okay. We're woefully short, and we're
trying to -- as we get the dollars, we put them in there to get those sets
kits -- in other words, cot, some blankets, some sundry items.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Where do you store them?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, we're going to use trailers and we're going
to work through that process. And we've got a plan in order to make
up those shortfalls, but it's not cheap either. That $250,000 bought
how many?
MR. von RINTELN: Roughly 10 trailers and 3,000 cots, and
then the accouterments to go along with it.
MR. MUDD: So we've got some more -- we've got some more
to go on that particular one. We don't have all the shelters we need.
We know that. We're trying to find a way to do it in the most
inexpensive way but still protect the safety of the residents of Collier
County, to make sure that the shelters are correct.
Are our evacuation routes good? Absolutely not, and I think
everybody on this dais, all you have to do is get on 1-75 at 4 o'clock in
the afternoon and go north, or get on 1-75 coming south at 7 o'clock or
7:30 in the morning, and you know that the road just doesn't make it
anymore. And we're going to need some help from this community,
190
July 27, 2004
from you, and from our representatives in Tallahassee to make sure
that widening of 1-75 takes a front burner issue as far as they're
concerned --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well--
MR. MUDD: -- and so we need to get that done.
But, ma'am, all that said and done, we have a good plan, we're
working toward making that --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I wanted -- let me -- let me stop you
there, because you were just talking about my next question.
So before you tell me about the good plan, let me go back to the
roads again. And one of Mark's questions was, have we established a
level of service for a hurricane event for the roads, that we can safely
evacuate everyone? Go ahead. Then it says, no response received.
MR. LITSINGER: I can answer that, Madam Chairman. The
response to Mr. Strain's question is, is that relative to a concurrency
standard for hurricane evacuation related activities, there is no
statutory provision for that, nor is it an optional level of service
standard.
We do have a requirement to maintain hurricane evacuation
routes relative to their status as being either deficient or satisfactory
relative to their level of service standard. But the answer to that
question is that it is not a concurrency type of facility, and we do not
have that option.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But we do have like a hurricane event
level of service standard for our roads? I mean, not just level of
service, but I'm talking about hurricane evacuation levels --
MR. LITSINGER: I'll let Don speak to that, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, transportation planning. The regional
planning council does analyses on how many hours it takes to
evacuate an area. I mean, that's been raised previously. And I think
that's one of the areas that needs to be updated because it's getting
191
----
July 27, 2004
some age on it.
Jim Mudd's correct in that -- I mean, we're talking about
improvements. Today we were talking about Golden Gate Parkway
and then some improvements for evacuation routes. But if we don't
improve 1-75, it doesn't matter how good our cross streets are, and
that's our big problem right now.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, you'd get them all out to 1-75, and
they'd sit there in a parking lot.
MR. SCOTT: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, I see what you're saying.
Okay. Thank you very much.
I don't know if I actually have my complete answer, but at least
we're going in that direction. Okay.
MR. MUDD: Right direction, yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think that's -- those are all the questions
I had.
Oh, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Manager Jim Mudd, could
you keep us abreast of where we are? Before we continue on in the
passage of the EAR report here, I need to have some assurance, I
guess, so I have a warm, fuzzy feeling that we're in the right direction,
and maybe you could periodically give us an update of where we are
as far as shelters and where we are as far as increasing the capacity of
the roads so that we can get people out of here. I would say maybe
every six months or so, unless there's no change. But I think we need
to -- I think I would feel more comfortable if I knew that -- what
direction we were going in and what we are doing.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We can give you a quarterly report.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It could be a semi-yearly.
MR. MUDD: No. We can give you quarterly, and let you know
and -- those things that change. And if there's no change based on the
last one, we can basically state that. Yeah, quarterly report's fine.
192
July 27,2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Then I would like to make a
motion that we --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Approve the resolution adopting
the seven-year EAR report for the -- of the Golden Gate -- or the
Collier County Growth Management Plan transmittal to the DCA with
the -- including of the Conservancy's recommendations worked out by
staff.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And the CCPC recommendations and the
ones that have been worked through with Mark Strain.
MR. LIT SINGER: And that we will also make corrections
needed to the extensive document relative to clarification and error
reVIew.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I was going to say there's a motion
on the floor by Commissioner Henning and Fiala and a second, but
we'll say it's from me, and a second by Commissioner Henning.
Discussion, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. Of course, you
realize I have a serious problem with the high hazard area and what
the -- as far as affordable housing goes, and that's the only hang-up I
have on this whole report. I mean, I think the thing is a marvelous
document. I think a lot of study's been put into it.
Perfect? No, it's not. But I mean, as far as what we can do as
human beings in a limited amount of time, it's a wonderful report.
I hate to vote against the thing in its entirety. I was wondering if
there might be a possibility we could separate that, and one element
from there, vote on the report, and then come back with the high
hazard area as far as affordable housing density and have that as the
last item so that I could be in the affirmative to be able to support the
report in general except for that one element.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm just happy to vote on it the way it is,
193
July 27, 2004
quite frankly.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm satisfied because I --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fine. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- think we -- we've increased the
density for affordable housing in that area to six units, and we're
looking at other -- four units? Okay. And then we're looking--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Plus one.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Plus one.
MR. SCHMITT: Three plus one.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, three plus one. Sorry about that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we really haven't increased
it. We've decreased it. I just can't live with that particular part of it.
But I want you to know that I do think this is a marvelous report, and I
commend staff for doing such a wonderful job.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, let me ask David, how many -- how
many votes do we need on this?
MR. WEIGEL: Three.
MR. MUDD: Three.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, okay. So -- and I appreciate that.
And I -- and, Commissioner, I can see with all your heart you mean --
you mean well.
So anyway, I have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Fiala,
a second by Commissioner Henning.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
194
July 27, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very well.
MR. LIT SINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
And thank you for all of your hard work, everyone, and the
CCPC. My goodness, Bob Murray, they worked so hard and we
relied so heavily on everything that they gave us, so I really appreciate
that. Thank you.
And now, folks, I think we've moved to the end of the meeting.
Item #15
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. We're on communications, number
15.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Communications, number 15. Yes. Okay.
And before we take our summer break, David, do you have
anything you'd like to say on the record here?
MR. WEIGEL: Nothing official pertaining to agenda work, but
it's nice to see you back on the dais again, brief as it may be, but look
forward to work for you during the next week so that we can get
together like this in September.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, the -- I don't know if you saw the good
news article, but we had an employee that basically -- a Collier
County employee that donated blood marrow to save a 70-year-old
man's life, and that was Tim Rudzitis, okay? He's a warehouse
specialist in the emergency medical services department. I just want
to make sure I bring it to your attention and bring it to the public's
attention.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We wrote him a thank-you note.
195
<-----
July 27, 2004
MR. MUDD: It's a very -- it's a very nice gesture on that man's
part, and it's pretty much -- he's not looking for thanks. He just
wanted to do something, help somebody.
I mentioned last time that we met that I was going to realign
emergency management, okay, and put it under Dan Summers and
bring it out of public services. I plan to have that done by 1 August so
that you know about it.
I've sent you each a memo to that particular idea, and I'm just
letting you know that we're going to do that, and I need to do that
based on the county manager's ordinance to make sure that you're
aware.
The next time we will meet is September 9th, and that's a public
hearing at 5:05, and that's the first hearing for the budget. So that's
when we'll see you next time, and then we'll get back into the regular
board -- board meeting minutes and whatever, and then we'll talk
about what we're going to do in November and October, if we want to
move it around a little bit because of Thanksgiving or how things turn
out. But we'll get to those particular issues.
Commissioners, I will tell you it's nice to see you back on the
dais, but I got to tell you, this was one heck of an agenda, and my hat's
off to you. I know you've all spent a lot of time going through that.
We had 1 70 some odd agenda items.
And I will say that I believe the staff did a pretty good job, and
just have to figure out what that glitch is between the time that I say
it's good to go and I've read all the items on that Wednesday
afternoon, and then when you get the printed product and why the
things get a little bit messed up in the printed version, and we'll get
that worked out.
That's all I have, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. You know, you can tell how
hard staff worked on this. It made it very clear for us. Yes, it was a
lot of reading for all of us, and for you guys too, but it made it easy for
196
-------..---
July 27, 2004
us to move through this meeting because everything was very clearly
stated. We didn't have a lot of questions to ask because it was already
explained to us.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Coyle wasn't here to
take up all the time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Amen.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that is on the record, right? Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
Commissioner Henning, do you have any comments?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, two things. The county
manager is talking about a -- one of the things that is on the UFR list,
and I've been kind of digging into that and kind of fleshing out to see
if there's any validity to it, and I haven't got all my answers to
questions by an outside agency, but there's some real potential of
saving the county some good moneys on mitigation, and hopefully we
can flesh that out before our September 8th budget.
But one of the things that the soil water conservation is doing,
and that's who we're talking about partnershipping with, is a mitigation
bank, but the offer of it was to include the private sector, and I had a
problem with that, and I said, hey, how about if we include affordable
housing in Collier County to try to curb some of the costs that Habitat
has to do or anybody else instead of paying, you know, like $32,000
for a mitigation credit, is -- maybe we can cut that down in half.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We also have some -- in the
fringe, some amendments, proposed amendments, coming to us. One
of the things in our fringe document, it states that we encourage
conservation mitigation in the sending areas, and I think that we have
opportunities to create another mitigation bank. And I believe the
proper people to manage that is the soil and water conservation
district.
I talked to Bill Lorenz and, of course, the county manager, and
197
'"--..
----->~
July 27,2004
the soil-- one of the members of the soil and water. So I -- you know,
it's always tough decisions as we raise impact fees and limit building
in the high hazard -- coastal high hazard areas. When we do things
like that, it is a burden on affordable housing, but it's the right thing to
do, so why not try to find other areas to assist affordable housing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Boy, I'm so glad you're saying that. I
hope -- I hope you can move that forward and come back to us with
some recommendations as we move into our new year. That's great.
That's really thinking.
MR. MUDD: Just remember, there needs (sic) 150,000 on the
UFR list. When we talk about it during budget workshop, there's a
little number down there that I've got in there that they've asked us for
as far as seed money to get their plans done, and we will be totally
reimbursed for that $150,000. They're just basically saying, give it to
me up front, we'll be partners in this, and then we'll get you your
money back as soon as the bank opens.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The other thing is the discussion
on the English-only policy. Reviewing the minutes and reading the
report, I think there was, you know, two things as far as direction is, I
think the harshness of requiring them to speak English, that -- to have
English, but also I think what I heard is a suggestion, hey, have
enough knowledge about the English language to do your job, and
that's what I got out of it, and I just want to know, is that what you got
out of it, too?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Just to keep them safe on the job __
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- is what I heard.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly, that the amount of English
language is enough to make sure that whatever job they're in, that we
as the county are secure that the people that we hire understand
exactly the directions that's given by other people, their peers, or their
supervIsors.
198
July 27, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, that's what I thought, too.
The -- so maybe we can look into that.
The other thing, two years ago, that we funded a position through
the library for -- it's a literacy position, so the county is doing things to
assist people into understanding the English language.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Uh-huh. And, you know, expanding on
that just a little bit. Maybe there are certain pockets of employees that
are just trying to learn the English language within our county
employee system, and maybe if they work in certain particular areas,
like, for instance, a lot of them with the lawn maintenance. Maybe we
could take that person -- that person who's teaching English to their
place of employment so that at the end of the day, maybe they can
stay an hour one day a week or something and we can help them to
learn the English language by bringing the education to them.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may? That's the most
proactive statement I've heard so far. I like that, to guide people to a
system, rather than to say, if you can't, then we're not going to work
with you.
The report, from what I got from it, it said there was a limited, or
no problem, between employees we presently have in government,
and some of them have mentioned the fact that there was very limited
English, but they seem to function quite well.
I imagine over a period of time that they learn just enough to be
able to respond. But I think there always should be an effort put
forward on everyone's part to try to better themselves, no matter what
the case is. We should look at ourselves more in a role as guidance
rather than this is the final straw, this is it, you know, you have to do
this, then we have jobs that are unfulfilled.
And too, we have a large number of people out there working for
the county through subcontractors, and the majority of them can't
speak a word of English.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, one of the things that -- as
199
-----
..,,~,~-~_..,-
July 27, 2004
you're talking it comes to mind, and I thought, you know, if we did
have an English class once a week at, say, the road and maintenance
building or something like that, and people began to be a little more
familiar with the English language, enough to speak with other people,
it might -- and all of these people, even if they're not citizens of the
U.S., they at least have a green card, maybe it would then encourage
them, because they're feeling better about their communication skills,
to take that next step and apply for citizenship. It just might be a way
to go.
Okay. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm done.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
And Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to say I want to thank
everybody and staff, and especially the transportation department, for
their perseverance, and I think it's going to be great when we go
forward with this overpass. Looking forward to the completion of it.
And I just want to wish all my fellow commissioner a happy
vacation time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I just want to express my
thanks to every one of the commissioners for assisting me during that
time of trouble in my family when my father-in-law was stricken
down by a stroke and we had to depart immediately to get up to
Painted Post, New York, and to allow me to attend the meeting for
that -- for that reason over the phone. I do appreciate that. I would
have regretted seriously having to miss that meeting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, it was great that you were there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And I'm the last one. We spoke a
while back -- rather Shelter for Abused Women came into the meeting
200
-,. ~'"'-,_.-<
July 27, 2004
and were asking for dollars, and we realized we just couldn't go that
route because we would open the floodgates, but since then a person
name Dawn Litchfield gave me a call -- she's a good friend of mine __
and she said she thought of another way we might attempt to do
something like this, and I thought this was the coolest idea, so I'm
going to bring it to your attention and maybe ask the county manager
to, you know, talk with some of the people in the social service area
and see if it would work.
She was mentioning that on our income tax returns that we return
to the federal government every year, we can check if we want to
donate to the Republican party. If I -- you know, I check here I donate
a buck.
She said, maybe there's a way for us on our tax bills here in
Collier County to check either, you know, I want $5 to go to social
service or I don't want 5 -- you know, some method. And I don't have
that. I'm just throwing this out onto the table.
Yes, I want to participate in a social service donation. That way
then, nobody has to if they don't want to. It's not a tax. They don't
have to pay it, but this would be a way for us to take some funds and
strictly limit them to that particular aspect, if we're interest in doing
that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner, would this be on
refunds? If there's any refunds coming to somebody, that they take
the refunds and -- some of the refunds and __
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, this is -- this is our own property tax.
MR. MUDD: You're talking about a property tax.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: On our own property tax, if you want to--
MR. MUDD: Okay. You're talking about a voluntary assess -- a
voluntary assessment above and beyond what's mandated.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. If you want to do it, you can, and
if you don't, you don't have to. Nobody knows if you're checking it or
not. Nobody sees it. It's just your own personal business if you feel
201
July 27, 2004
like doing that or not. I don't even know if it's a legal thing that we
can do. You know, I have no idea.
MR. MUDD: Now I'm -- ma'am, now I'm going to ask a
question. Are you telling me you're checking a box and you're taking
money out of the ad valorem tax base --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, no, you pay extra five bucks. Oh, no,
you don't take anything out. No, no, no, I would not do that. You can
add 5 bucks in if you want to and -- or you can even leave a space that
says, or however much you want, you know, but -- and then you'd
have to add that to your check. No, we can't afford to take five bucks
out.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, I will talk to the tax collector and see what
I can come up with.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. She mentioned -- she said,
this keeps the hands -- it keeps -- keeps this position in the hands of
the taxpayers rather than have us do anything at all. Taxpayers can
decide if they want to give it or not, and she said, this is a form of
good government, and so I thought I would just present it to you, if
anybody likes the idea, if it works, if we can even legally do it.
Something to pursue.
And with that, I wish everybody a wonderful August. We'll see
you September 9th. Thank you.
Meeting adjourned.
*****Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner
Fiala and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE OF 1.14 ACRES
202
July 27, 2004
UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION
Item #16A2
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE OF 1.14 ACRES
UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION
Item #16A3
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE OF 2.73 ACRES
UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION
Item #16A4
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE OF 3.79 ACRES
UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION
PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $39,200
(BEARDSLRV)
Item #16A5
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE OF 1.14 ACRES
UNDER THE CONSERV A TION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION
PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $11,600
(BEARDSLRv, TRllSIER)
Item #16A6
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE OF 1.14 ACRES
203
July 27, 2004
UNDER THE CONSERV A TION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION .
Item #16A7
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE OF 1.59 ACRES
UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION
PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $16,000
(HAMILION)
Item #16A8
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE OF 2.27 ACRES
UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION
Item #16A9
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE OF 1.14 ACRES
UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION
Item #16AI0
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "MILANO", APPROVAL
OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, AND APPROVAL OF THE
Item #16All
FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AND HOUSING
204
July 27,2004
DEPARTMENT'S REQUEST FOR APPROVING PAYMENT TO
ATTEND THE COPELAND CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS "ONE-YEAR
OF SUCCESS" ANNIVERSARY DINNER WHICH WAS HELD
ON JUNE 28, 2004 AT THE EVERGLADES SEAFOOD DEPOT
RESTAURANT IN EVERGLADES CITY, FLORIDA AT A COST
OF $112.00 FOR THE SEVEN EMPLOYEES WHO ATTENDED
TO BE PAID FROM THE GRANTS TRUST FUND TRAVEL
BlIDGET
Item #16A12
RESOLUTION 2004-224: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADW A Y (PRIVATE), DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "CAMELOT
PARK", 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 THE MAINTENANCE
SECIlRITY
Item #16A13
RESOLUTION 2004-225: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE), DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "LALIQUE" THE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
PRIVATELY MAINTAINED, THE WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE MAINTAINED BY COLLIER
COUNTY- WITH RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE
SECIlRITY
Item #16A14
205
,---
July 27,2004
RESOLUTION 2004-226: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE), DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "VILLA
FLORENZA" 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 #16A15
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "CA YO COSTA, UNIT
TWO", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
Item #16A16
A MORTGAGE AND PROMISSORY NOTE FOR A TWO
HUNDRED TWENTY-EIGHT THOUSAND ($228,000) DOLLAR
LOAN TO THE COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY TO
BE USED TO ASSIST IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 192 BED
FARM WORKER HOUSING FACILITY TO BE NAMED
Item #16A17
A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CURRENT INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF COLLIER COUNTY
AND THE RELATED BUDGET AMENDMENTS THAT
206
July 27, 2004
TRANSFERS THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FUNDS - AS
Item #16A18
"
Item #16A19
RESOLUTION 2004-227: A REVISED FEE RESOLUTION
SUPERCEDING RESOLUTION NO. 2004-97 WHICH
ESTABLISHED A FEE SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT
RELATED REVIEW AND PROCESSING FEES - AS DETAILED
Item #16A20
RESOLUTION 2004-228: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE), DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "GLEN LAKE
ESTATES", 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 #16A21
THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT
BOARD CASE NOS. 2000-031, 2001-005, 2000-049, 2003-028,
2000-02LlAND 20QJ -OR~
207
-~<~~-----_.
July 27, 2004
Item #16A22
ONE IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT REQUESTED BY
GOODLETTE ROAD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FOR AN
AMOUNT OF $415,326.10 DUE TO BUILDING PERMIT
CANCELLATION - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SliMMARY
Item #16A23
ONE IMP ACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT REQUESTED BY
VINEYARDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR AN
AMOUNT OF $1,264,080 DUE TO AN OVERPAYMENT OF
WATER AND SEWER IMP ACT FEES ON BUILDING PERMIT
NO. 2004-050308 -AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SliMMARY
Item #16A24
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASRNO 2001-04J
Item #16A25
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "PINE AIR LAKES UNIT
FIVE", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY - WITH
SIœI.lL.AIKThJS
Item #16A26
208
July 27, 2004
CONTRACT #04-3682 IN THE AMOUNT OF $69,330 WITH
TINDALE-OLIVER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR
CONSUL T ANT SERVICES FOR A LAW ENFORCEMENT
IMP A CT..EE.E..STIlD Y
Item #16Bl
BID NO. 04-3603R-"PURCHASE OF LIME-ROCK AND FILL
MATERIAL" TO AGGRISOURCE, YOUNGQUIST, FLORIDA
ROCK, SOUTHERN SAND AND STONE, INC., FOR THE
Item #16B2
A NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
(NTMP) TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECT, REQUESTED BY THE
LEL Y CIVIC ASSOCIATION, INC. FOR INSTALLATION OF
TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES ON FOREST HILLS
Item #16B3
A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR ADVANCING (RESERVE)
FISCAL YEAR 2005 LANDSCAPING FUNDS INTO FISCAL
YEAR 2004 WITH REINSTATEMENT OF THE RESERVE FUNDS
IN FISCAL YEAR 2005 FROM THE LANDSCAPING BUDGET IN
THE AMOUNT OF $274,059- AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16B4
A DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN FFT
209
July 27, 2004
SANTA BARBARA I, LLC AND GERTRUDE ABELE, TRUSTEE
FOR THE SANTA BARBARA EXTENSION PROJECT FROM
DAVIS TO RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD - AS DETAILED
Item #16B5
ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION DESIGNATIONS
FOR IMMOKALEE AND MARCO ISLAND "URBAN CLUSTER"
AREAS OF COLLIER COUNTY - AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16B6
BID #04-3674 AWARDED TO COMMERCIAL LAND
MAINTENANCE, INC. FOR THE "AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD
MSTD ROADWAY GROUNDS MAINTENANCE" FOR A
YEARJ.Y COSLOE$J 21,R75
Item #16B7
A LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN LONGSHORE LAKE FOUNDATION,
INC. AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR LANDSCAPING AND WALL
INSTALLATION WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ON LOGAN
BOULEVARD AT NO COST TO THE COUNTY - WITH
SIœllLAIIONS
Item #16B8 - Withdrawn
EXEMPTIONS AND VARIANCES TO THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR CENTER POINT COMMUNITY
210
July 27, 2004
CHURCH, CARSON LAKES PHASE II, AND NASER MEDICAL
Item #16B9
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE
COMMISSION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
DISADVANTAGED FOR FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$428,549.20, PAYABLE OVER 10 MONTHS, FOR THE
PROVISION OF NON-EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION FOR
QUALIFIED MEDICAID RECIPIENTS-THIS AGREEMENT IS
SUBJECT TO THE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED
COMMlS..SION.AEOV AT,
Item #16B10
A DONATION FROM THE LEL Y GOLF ESTATES CIVIC
ASSOCIATION TO THE LEL Y GOLF ESTATES
BEAUTIFICATION MSTU IN THE AMOUNT OF $7395.12 FOR
50% OF THE REFURBISHMENT COST OF THE MSTU'S
ENTRANCE MONUMENTS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION
Item #16B11
THE TRANSPORTATION DIVISION TO PROVIDE A ONE-TIME
GRADING AND LIME ROCK FOR SOUTH 8TH STREET AND
DOAK A VENUE IN IMMOKALEE THEREBY MAKING THE
ROADS PASSABLE FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES SUCH AS
Item #16B12
211
July 27, 2004
SIX ADOPT -A-ROAD AGREEMENTS WITH: BUZZ HILL STATE
FARM, DANCE UNIVERSE-MISS S.W. FLORIDA USA (3), LORI
YOUNG-SOUTH BAY REALTY AND SWISS TEAM
ENTERPRISES, INC. FISCAL IMPACT OF $75.00 FOR TEN (10)
SIGNS
Item #16B13
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS, INC. FOR
THE PALM STREET OUTFALL PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$71,402.50- AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(ERO.IECI.NO 51.8.04)
Item #16B14
GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $500,000 FROM THE
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR
THE HALDEMAN CREEK DREDGING PROJECT (PROJECT
Item #16B15
A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING REVENUE
RECEIVED FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION UNDER AN ANNUAL MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND STREETLIGHTS
~OAT)S
Item #16B16
CONTRACT #03-3568 FOR THE AMOUNT OF $297,250
212
'---'-~"""--"'-"'-""^'--"-""-"-'- --,.--..
July 27, 2004
AWARDED TO AQUAGENIX FOR THE 2004 AUSTRALIAN
PINE REMOVAL PROJECT, AND APPROVE A BUDGET
AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$JAR, 2~O(ERO.IEC.I..N 0 ~ l5ill )
Item #16B17
RESOLUTION 2004-229: A SPEED LIMIT CHANGE FROM
FIFTY-FIVE MILES PER HOUR (55 MPH) TO FORTY-FIVE
MILES PER HOUR (45 MPH) ON OIL WELL ROAD FROM
CORKSCREW MIDDLE SCHOOL TO 2600 FEET EAST OF
EVERGLADES BOULEVARD, FOR A DISTANCE OF
APPROXIMATEL Y THREE (3) MILES, AT AN APPROXIMATE
COS T...OE.$.6.QO
Item #16B18
A LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN NAPLES BOTANICAL GARDEN, INC.
AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR LANDSCAPING AND
IRRIGATION INSTALLATION WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY
Item #16B19
CONTRACT FOR RFP #04-3571 AWARDED TO PBS & J FOR
THE "GREEN BOULEVARD EXTENSION CORRIDOR STUDY",
A LONG RANGE FUTURE PLANNED EXTENSION BETWEEN
SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD AND LIVINGSTON ROAD, IN
THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $277,058 (PROJECT NO. 62024)- AS
213
~._-"-'~'_.~~'
Item #16B20
July 27, 2004
A CONTRACT BETWEEN CONSUL TECH, INC. AND COLLIER
COUNTY FOR SYSTEM MANAGER ENGINEERING SERVICES
RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND
IMPLEMENTATION OVERSIGHT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ADVANCED TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (ATMS) PHASE II PROJECT, WITH A
MAXIMUM LIMITING AMOUNT OF $653,176.54 BEING
REIMBURSED TO COLLIER COUNTY BY THE FLORIDA
Item #16B21
A (PER TRIP) RATE INCREASE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
DISADVANTAGED PROGRAM - AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16B22
A CONTRACT FOR BID #04-3644 AWARDED TO YOUNG'S
COMMUNICATIONS CO., INC., AND KENT TECHNOLOGIES,
INC. FOR "CONDUIT AND COMMUNICATIONS PULL BOX
INSTALLATION" RELATING TO COMMUNICATION
REQUIREMENTS OF PHASE II, OF THE ADVANCED TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROJECT, WITH A TOTAL COST OF
APPROXIMATELY $1,118,000 TO BE REIMBURSED TO
COLLIER COUNTY BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
IRANSEORIATIoN
Item # 16B23
214
--
July 27, 2004
ANNUAL CONTRACTS FOR RFP #04-3645 "REAL ESTATE
APPRAISAL SERVICES", THE SELECTION COMMITTEE'S
CHOICE OF FOURTEEN (14) FIRMS TO PROVIDE REAL
ESTATE APPRAISAL SERVICES FOR COLLIER COUNTY - AS
Item #16B24
REPAIRS TO A SURFACE WATER PUMPING STATION IN THE
EAST NAPLES AREA NOT TO EXCEED $20,000 AND TO
ACCEPT AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
LELY CIVIC ASSOCIATION, INC. & LELY COUNTRY CLUB
P.O.A. FOR PERPETUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
RESPONSIBILITIES OF SAID PUMP TO LEL Y CIVIC
Item #16C 1
BID NUMBER #04-3624 AWARDED TO AAA GENERATOR &
PUMP INC. FOR THE PURCHASE OF GENERATORS BY THE
WATER DEPARTMENT IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF
$.U O,6R2
Item #16C2
BID NUMBER #04-3626 AWARDED TO E.A. W AETJEN, INC.
FOR THE PURCHASE OF A LOCK AND ACCESS SYSTEM FOR
USE BY THE WATER DEPARTMENT IN THE ESTIMATED
AMOUNT OF $125,000 (PROJECT NO. 71009 SECURITY
lÆGRADRS)
Item # 16C3
215
July 27, 2004
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $720,000 TO
FUND OPERATING EXPENSES FOR ELECTRICITY AND
CHEMICALS AT THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER
IREAIMENIELANT
Item #16C4
TWO (2) UTILITY EASEMENTS AND VARIOUS OTHER
TRANSACTION DOCUMENTS RELATIVE TO THE GOLDEN
GATE WELLFIELD RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
Item #16C5
SURPLUS BID #S04-3594 AWARDED TO E.B. SIMMONDS
ELECTRICAL, INC. FOR ONE 250 KW GENERATOR IN THE
.AMill.INI...OE,2 SO
Item #16C6
A WELL RELOCATION AGREEMENT, TO RELOCATE
IMMOKALEE ROAD WELLFIELD WELL NO.1, BETWEEN
CENTEX HOMES AND THE COLLIER COUNTY W A TER-
SEWER DISTRICT, TO ACCOMMODATE THE PLANNED
LOCATION OF A NEW ENTRANCE ROAD AT HERITAGE BAY
AND APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT IN
~50,OOO
Item #16C7
WORK ORDER #MP-FT-04-04 UNDER CONTRACT #00-3119
216
July 27, 2004
WITH MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC. IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $350,000 TO PROVIDE PROJECT MANAGEMENT
SUPPORT SERVICE FOR THE NORTHEAST REGIONAL
WATER TREATMENT PLANT AND WATER RECLAMATION
FACILITY (PROJECT NO. 70902 AND NO. 73156) - AS
Item #16C8
AWARD CONTRACT #04-3672 TO ENCORE CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT THE GOODLAND WATER
BOOSTER PUMPING STATION UPGRADES, IN THE AMOUNT
OF $690,000, RECOGNIZING THE ADDITIONAL CARRY
FORWARD, AND APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENT
Item #16C9
EXECUTION OF A LETTER OF AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE
CONSULTING SERVICES, NOT TO EXCEED $18,067.50, FOR
THE EV ALUA TION OF A UTILITY AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND - AS
Item #16C10
RESOLUTION 2004-230: AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF
TEMPORARY BEACH RESTORATION EASEMENTS
REQUIRED FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY BEACH
RESTORATION PROJECT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN, AT A
217
July 27, 2004
Item #16C11
CHANGE TO A WORK ORDER, UNDER CONTRACT #01-3271,
FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS, WITH COASTAL
PLANNING AND ENGINEERING INC., FOR WORK ORDER
CPE-FT-03-08, PERMIT COMMENT AND RESPONSE, FORAN
Item #16C12
AMENDMENT NO.2 TO WORK ORDER CDM-FT-03-02 UNDER
CONTRACT #00-3119 FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
RELATED TO ADDING ONE NEW PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY
WELL (WELL 33) TO THE TAMIAMI WELLFIELD AT A COST
Item #16C13
BID #04-3592-"COLLECTION AGENCY SERVICES FOR
COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY BILLING & CUSTOMER
SERVICE" AWARDED TO CONSERVE ACCOUNTS
RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT, M.J. ALTMAN, AND PENN
CREDIT CORPORATION, FOR A CONTRACT PERIOD OF TWO
YEARS, AT AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST OF
AEEROXIMAIELY.$50,OOO
Item #16C14
WORK ORDER ICTSCADA-REV-04-001 UNDER CONTRACT
04-3536 TO REVERE CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR
INSTRUMENTATION, CONTROLS AND ELECTRICAL
218
,--~" - ..>.----
July 27, 2004
INSTALLATION SERVICES RELATED TO MANATEE ROAD
SCADA UPGRADE IN THE AMOUNT OF $105,330 (PROJECT
Item #16C15
AMEND WORK ORDER MAC-FT-04-01 UNDER CONTRACT
#03-3484 TO MCKIM & CREED ENGINEERS FOR
IMPLEMENTATION AND INTEGRATION ENGINEERING
SERVICES RELATED TO CONTROL AND TELEMETRY
UPGRADES FOR CARICA, V ANDERBIL T AND BAREFOOT
WATER DISTRIBUTION PUMP STATIONS AND FOR WATER
SCADA SYSTEM BROADBAND WIDE AREA NETWORK IN
THE AMOUNT OF $188,650 (PROJECT 70124) - AS DETAILED
Item #16C16
A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH RICKY AND CHRISTINA
MCALEER FOR THE NORTH HAWTHORN WELLFIELD
WATER SUPPLY TRANSMISSION MAINS FOR PAYMENT FOR
THE LOSS OF AN EARTHEN BERM AND ACQUISITION OF A
UTILITY AND ACCESS EASEMENT FOR A COST OF $38, 360
(ER.OlEC.LNO. 7007~1)
Item #16C17
BID #04-3683 AWARDED TO GOLDEN GATE WELL DRILLING,
INC., GOLDEN GATE WELLFIELD RELIABILITY
IMPROVEMENTS -TAMIAMI WELLFIELD DRILLING
SERVICES FOR THE ADDITION OF (1) ONE NEW WELL UP TO
AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $90,950 PER WELL (PROJECT
219
July 27, 2004
NO 701 ~R)
Item #16C18
A WORK ORDER UNDER CONTRACT #01-3271, FIXED TERM
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR COASTAL
ZONE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS, AWARDED TO TAYLOR
ENGINEERING FOR THE 2004 MONITORING OF MARCO
ISLAND, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $78,916 (PROJECT
Item #16C19
CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT TO FLORIDA POWER &
LIGHT COMPANY REQUIRED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS
CENTER AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $18.50 (PROJECT NO.
~900~)
Item #16C20
A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR $250,000, AND AUTHORIZING
THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE
WORK ORDER #PSI-FT-04-02, TO PSI, INC. UNDER
CONTRACT #03-3427 "ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING,
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION SERVICES FOR COLLIER
COUNTY" TO COMPLETE PHASE 1 OF THE CELLS 1 AND 2
RESTORATION PROJECT AT THE NAPLES LANDFILL IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $250,000 - AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16D1
220
July 27, 2004
BID #04-3668, AWARDED TO NAPLES BOAT MART FOR THE
"REFURBISHMENT OF A YEAR 2000,25 FT. PARKER MODEL
2510 DVCCC OPEN BOW RESCUE BOAT" AT A COST OF
$67,441-2J
Item #16D2
RESOLUTION 2004-231: AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 03-244
FOR COLLIER COUNTY EMS AMBULANCE SERVICE USER
Item #16D3
AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY CHILD
ADVOCACY COUNCIL, INC. (CCCAC) TO PROVIDE FOR
MANDATED SERVICES IDENTIFIED UNDER FLORIDA
STATUTE 39.304(5) - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16D4
RFP #04-3618 "TIGERTAIL BEACH WATER AND BEACH
CONCESSION" AWARDED TO RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
OF AMERICA, INC. FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS, WITH AN
Item #16D5
PURCHASE BLEACHERS, FROM SEATING CONSTRUCTORS
USA IN THE AMOUNT OF $31,896.12, TO UPGRADE
BLEACHERS AT ATHLETIC FACILITIES THROUGHOUT THE
221
-"^.
_·...___"m
July 27, 2004
COI.lNIY.EARK SYSTEM
Item #16D6
A RESIDENTIAL LICENSE LEASED PROPERTY AGREEMENT
FOR MR. JASON HAVLIK, A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER,
TO LIVE ONSITE AND OVERSEE ACTIVITIES AT SUGDEN
REGI.CThIALURK
Item #16D7
REPLACEMENT OF TURF MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT FROM
Item #16D8
A HOME CARE FOR THE ELDERLY BUDGET AMENDMENT
AND CONTINUATION GRANT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $97,359,
AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE AREA ON AGING FOR
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. D/B/A! SENIOR SOLUTIONS OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA FOR THE PERIOD OF mL Y 1, 2004
THROUGH JUNE 30, 2005 TO PROVIDE IN-HOME SUPPORT
SERYICES
Item #16D9
AN ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE INITIATIVE CONTINUATION
GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $105,706 FOR SUPPORT
SERVICES FOR SENIORS, AND AUTHORIZING THE
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
222
'--,~
July 27, 2004
COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE
AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC.,
D/B/A! SENIOR SOLUTIONS OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA FOR
Item #16D10
THE COMMUNITY CARE FOR THE ELDERLY
CONTINUATION GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $614,132, FOR
SENIOR SUPPORT SERVICES, AND AUTHORIZING THE
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE
AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC.,
D/B/A! SENIOR SOLUTIONS OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA FOR
Item #16D11
THE PURCHASE OF A RUBBERIZED NATURAL GRASS FIELD
PROCESS FOR A SOCCER FIELD AT THE VINEYARD'S
COMMUNITY PARK FROM TURF SOLUTIONS SOUTHEAST
AT A COST OF $30,000, TO BE FUNDED BY THE WASTE TIRE
GRANI.EROGRAM
Item #16E1
BID #04-3621 FOR ALARM MONITORING SERVICES
AWARDED TO DEHART ALARMS FOR MONITORING FIRE
AND BURGLAR ALARMS IN COUNTY GOVERNMENT
Item #16E2
223
July 27, 2004
QUOTE #04-0333 UNDER CONTRACT #02-3349 AWARDED TO
SURETY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR "MAIN LOBBY
RENOVATIONS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COURTHOUSE"
Item # 16E3
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AMERICAN RED CROSS
AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO
PROVIDE TRAINING TO COLLIER COUNTY EMPLOYEES TO
BECOME "AMERICAN RED CROSS HEALTH AND SAFETY"
CERTIFIED INSTRUCTORS AND AUTHORIZED PROVIDERS
OF FIRST AID, CPR, AND OTHER HEALTH AND SAFETY
Elli TCA 110NER OGRAMS
Item # 16E4
ADDITIONS TO THE 2004 FISCAL YEAR PAY AND
CLASSIFICATION PLAN MADE FROM MAY 15, 2004
IHROliGH.lIJJ ,Y 9, 2004
Item #16E5
STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS AND CHANGES TO
WORK ORDERS TO BOARD-APPROVED CONTRACTS FOR
THE PERIOD OF MAY 24, 2004 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2004- AS
Item # 16E6
CONTRACT #02-3349 IN THE AMOUNT OF $74,818 AWARDED
TO SURETY CONSTRUCTION CO. FOR "TOILET
224
-~.,.. ._..._--~.,.~~-,-
July 27, 2004
RENO V A TIONS FOR BUILDING F" TO UPGRADE THE
FACILITIES, THEREFORE COMPLYING WITH THE
Item #16E7
REPORT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CONCERNING THE SALE AND TRANSFER OF ITEMS FROM
THE COUNTY SURPLUS AUCTION OF JULY 10, 2004,
Item #16E8
A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR $66,382 FOR A GENERAL
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT MAINTENANCE PROJECT
{EROlECI.No ~2~2~)
Item #16E9
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE EXCESS
REVENUES AND APPROPRIATE EXPENDITURES IN THE
Item #16EI0
A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH NEXTEL SOUTH
CORPORATION GRANTING USE OF 150 SQUARE FEET OF
ROOFTOP SPACE ATOP BUILDING "L" AT THE
GOVERNMENT COMPLEX, IN ORDER TO INSTALL AND
OPERATE COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT FOR THEIR
CELLULAR BUSINESS, FOR AN ANNUAL REVENUE OF
$30,000 AND A FIRST YEAR, ONE-TIME CONTRIBUTION OF
225
July 27,2004
Item #16Ell
A LETTER DESIGNATING COLLIER COUNTY EARLY
LITERACY AND READING PARTNERSHIP FOR
EDUCATIONAL SUCCESS AS THE LOCAL COUNCIL FOR THE
EARL Y LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES ACT DISCRETIONARY
GRANTS PROGRAM OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES FOR FUNDING TO BE
RECEIVED BY FUN TIME EARLY CHILDHOOD ACADEMY,
me
Item #16E12
DECLARING CERTAIN COUNTY-OWNED MODULAR
FURNITURE PIECES AS SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZE STAFF
TO PRO PERL Y DISPOSE OF THESE ITEMS AT THE COUNTY
Item #16E13 - Continued Indefinitely
THE ADVISORY COMMITTEES OUTSTANDING MEMBERS
SERVICE AWARD PROGRAM, BASED ON YEARS OF
SERVICE, TO HONOR AND REWARD ADVISORY
COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR THEIR OUTSTANDING AND
Item #16Fl
SUMMARY OF CONSENT AND EMERGENCY AGENDA ITEMS
APPROVED BY THE COUNTY MANAGER DURING THE
226
"'--.-
~._"----~,.._-
July 27, 2004
BOARD'S SCHEDULED RECESS, JUNE 27, 2004 TO JULY 13,
2004, PER RESOLUTION NO. 2000-149 - AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16F2 - Moved to Item #10R (Regular Agenda)
Item #16F3
RESOLUTION 2004-232: FIXING THE DATE, TIME AND PLACE
FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPROVING THE SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT (NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT) TO BE
LEVIED AGAINST THE PROPERTIES WITHIN PELICAN BAY
MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT (MSTU)
FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE WATER MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM, BEAUTIFICATION OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
AND MEDIAN AREAS AND MAINTENANCE OF
CONSERVATION OR PRESERVE AREAS, AND
ESTABLISHMENT OF CAPITAL RESERVE FUNDS FOR
AMBIENT NOISE MANAGEMENT, MAINTENANCE OF
CONSERVATION OR PRESERVE AREAS, U.S. 41 BERM,
STREET SIGNAGE REPLACEMENTS WITHIN THE MEDIAN
AREAS AND LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS TO U.S. 41
Item #16F4
A TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY "A" FY 05 GRANT
APPLICATION AND A TOURISM AGREEMENT SUBMITTED
BY THE CITY OF NAPLES FOR MONITORING OF DOCTORS
Item #16F5
227
'--'"
July 27, 2004
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AS REQUESTED BY THE FLORIDA
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES (FAC) FOR LEGAL
PROCEEDINGS ON DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE
COST SHIFT AND ADDITIONAL HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT
Item #16F6
SUMMARY OF 17 FUND 195 TOURIST DEVELOPMENT
CATEGORY "A" GRANT APPLICATIONS AND
CORRESPONDING TOURISM AGREEMENTS AND OTHER
TOURIST TAX FUNDED EXPENDITURES TOTALING
$24,724,568 FOR FY 04/05 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SllMMARv
Item # 16F7
AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND THE CITY OF NAPLES ESTABLISHING OFFICE
SPACE FOR OUR COLLIER COUNTY FILM COMMISSIONER
WITHIN THE NORRIS COMMUNITY CENTER AT A COST OF
Item #16F8
DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN AMENDMENT TO
ORDINANCE NO. 92-18 ELIMINATING THE NON-VOTING
Item # 16F9
228
-_....
_~~.M_____~._ _
July 27, 2004
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE AND
APPROPRIATE $14,400 OF ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE DISTRICT
IMPACT FEE REVENUE TO FUND THE PURCHASE OF
Item #16F10
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE AND
APPROPRIATE $30,000 OF UNANTICIPATED REVENUE FROM
THE ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE DISTRICT INSPECTION FEES,
WHICH WILL BE USED TO FUND REGULAR SALARIES IN
IHAI.lliSIRICT
Item #16F11
A BUDGET AMENDMENT REPORT - AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16F12
RESOLUTION 2004-233: AUTHORIZING THE BORROWING OF
AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $6,000,000 FROM THE
POOLED COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN PROGRAM OF THE
FLORIDA LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE COMMISSION
PURSUANT TO THE LOAN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE
COMMISSION IN ORDER TO FINANCE THE ACQUISITION OF
THE ARTHREX BUILDING FOR THE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION- AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16F13
229
._<~--,,--~."...<
July 27, 2004
RESOLUTION 2004-234: AUTHORIZING THE BORROWING OF
AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $21,400,000 FROM THE
POOLED COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN PROGRAM OF THE
FLORIDA LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE COMMISSION
PURSUANT TO THE LOAN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE
COMMISSION IN ORDER TO FINANCE THE ACQUISITION OF
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE COUNTY,
COLLECTIVELY KNOWN AS AMERICA'S BUSINESS PARK-
Item #16F14
A CONTRACT FOR RFP #04-3607 WITH PUBLIC FINANCIAL
MANAGEMENT, INC., (PFM) FOR FINANCIAL ADVISORY
SERYICES
Item #16G1
A GRANT FROM THE FEDERAL A VIA TION
ADMINISTRATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $245,889 FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A PARALLEL TAXIWAY AT THE
ffiŒRGLADRS A TREARK
Item #16H1
REQUEST PAYMENT FOR COMMISSIONER HALAS TO
ATTEND THE GREATER NAPLES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
2004 ANNUAL TRADE SHOW, AUGUST 25, 2004 AT THE
NAPLES BEACH HOTEL AT A COST OF $15.00 TO BE PAID
230
July 27,2004
Item #1611
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:
231
~".,--.-,.._"",_...........~..,-".
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
July 27, 2004
A. Minutes:
1. Collier County Hisµanic Affairs Advisory Board - Agenda for March 25,
2004; _Minutes of March 25, 2004.
2. Development Services Advisory Committee - Minutes of June 2, 2004.
a) Budget and Operations Sub-Committee - Minutes of June 16, 2004
3. Environmental Advisory Board - Agenda for July 7, 2004; Minutes of
May 5, 2004.
4. Collier County Planning Commission - Agenda for June 17,2004, July 1,
2004; Minutes of May 6,2004.
5. Collier County Productivity Committee - Minutes of MaYI9, 2004.
6. Vanderbilt Beach M.S.T.U. - Agenda for July 1,2004; Minutes of June 3,
2004.
7. Collier County Domestic Animal Services Advisory Board - Minutes of
May 19,2004.
8. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee - Minutes of May 13,2004.
9. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board - Agenda for June 16,2004;
Minutes of May 19,2004.
10. Collier County Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - Agenda for
June 16,2004; Minutes of May 19,2004.
H:DataIF ormat
'--"""-'-'"''
July 27, 2004
Item #16J1
FILING OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA ANNUAL LOCAL
GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-
2003 AS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA STATUTE 218.32 - AS
Item #16K1
AN APPLICATION FOR THE LEASE OF SUBMERGED LAND
(AQUACULTURE) FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOR TWO
Item #16K2
A PARTIAL RELEASE OF LIEN IMPOSED IN RESOLUTION NO.
2000-373, RESOLUTION NO. 2003-279 AND RESOLUTION NO.
2003-407, RELATING TO CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATIONS
Item #16K3
THE STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 179 AND 179T IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. DR. FRANCISCO O. CORTINA, ET
AL., CASE NO. 00-0936-CA (GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD
EROlECI..NO 6304J
Item #16K4
MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS TO PARCELS 739
AND 839 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
232
July 27, 2004
NANCY L. JOHNSON PERRY, ET AL., CASE NO. 03-2373-CA
Item #16K5
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO PARCEL 138 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JOHN A URIGEMMA,
ET AL., CASE NO. 04-344-CA (VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD
EROlECI..N 0 (3051)
Item #16K6
AN AGREED ORDER AWARDING GUARDIAN AD LITEM
FEES AS TO PARCEL 326 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. AGNALDO DELIMA, ET AL., CASE NO. 00-1967-CA,
GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD II FOR A TOTAL COST OF $489
(EROlECI.NO 6304J)
Item #16K7
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO PARCEL 146 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. ELIZABETH D.
BLOCH, ET AL., CASE NO. 03-2403-CA (GOLDEN GATE
EARKW A Y EROlECI..bIO (0027)
Item #16K8
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 114 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. MARIAN H. GERACE, AS SUCCESSOR
TRUSTEE, ET AL., CASE NO. 00-0139-CA (PINE RIDGE ROAD
EROlECI..NO 60 ill )
233
July 27, 2004
Item #16K9
RESOLUTION 2004-235: AUTHORIZING THE COLLIER
COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO
ISSUE REVENUE BONDS TO BE USED TO FINANCE CERTAIN
COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION, RENOVATION AND EQUIPPING
OF COMMUNITY, RECREATIONAL, AND SOCIAL SERVICE
FACILITIES FOR THE YMCA OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC. AND
TO REFUND CURRENTLY OUTSTANDING INDEBTEDNESS
FOR ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES - AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16K10
RESOLUTION 2004-236: UPDATED APPROVAL AUTHORIZING
THE COLLIER COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY TO ISSUE REVENUE BONDS TO BE USED TO
FINANCE MANUFACTURING FACILITIES FOR THE MARCH
Item #16K11
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND THE OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER FOR THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF
FLORIDA, FOR REPRESENTATION OF INDIGENT
DEFENDANTS, FOR AN ESTIMATED QUARTERLY COST OF
$5,000
Item #16K12
AN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN
234
July 27, 2004
COLLIER COUNTY AND THE OFFICE OF THE STATE
ATTORNEY FOR THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF
FLORIDA, TO PROSECUTE COUNTY ORDINANCE
VIOLATORS, FORAN ESTIMATED QUARTERLY COST OF
$.i,ill}0
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2004-47: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 91-
102, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, OR ITS SUCCESSOR, BY PROVIDING
FOR AN AMENDMENT TO CORRECT ORDINANCE NO. 03-28,
FOR THE TUSCANY RESERVE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD) TO CORRECT A SENTENCE
ERRONEOUSL Y OMITTED FROM THE PUD DOCUMENT FOR
THE PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 48
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST AND IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 48
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2004-237: PETITION A VPLAT2004-AR5547,
BUSINESS LANE DEVELOPMENT, INC., REPRESENTED BY
BLAIR FOLEY, P.E., SEEKING TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE
AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST
IN THE 15 FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ON
LOTS 27 AND 28, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF "NORTH
COLLIER INDUSTRIAL CENTER", AS RECORDED IN PLAT
BOOK 31, PAGES 50 THROUGH 51, PUBLIC RECORDS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND TO ACCEPT A 15 FOOT
WIDE RELOCATION DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON A PORTION
235
July 27, 2004
OF LOTS 28 AND 29 OF SAID "NORTH COLLIER INDUSTRIAL
CENTER", LOCATED IN SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST
Item #17C
ORDINANCE 2004-48: AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY
ORDINANCE NO. 97-8, AS AMENDED, THE FALSE ALARM
ORDINANCE; AUTHORIZING VIOLATORS TO APPEAL
CITATIONS TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL
MASTER; AUTHORIZING THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE TO REFER
UNPAID CITATIONS TO THE SPECIAL MASTER; PROVIDING
THAT THE SPECIAL MASTER CAN ASSESS A CIVIL FINE UP
TO $500 AND CAN FILE LIENS AGAINST VIOLATOR'S
PROPERTY; INCREASING CIVIL FINES FOR FIVE OR MORE
FALSE ALARM VIOLATIONS; PROVIDING THAT CLASS
CERTIFICATES FOR CREDIT AGAINST A FUTURE
Item #17D
RESOLUTION 2004-238: PETITION V A2004-AR5756 CYPRESS
GLEN DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTED BY GEORGE
HERMANSON, OF HOLE MONTES, INC., REQUESTING AN
AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE OF 1.25 FEET FROM THE
MINIMUM REQUIRED 15-FOOT SEPARATION BETWEEN
STRUCTURES AS PROVIDED IN THE CYPRESS GLEN PUD, TO
ALLOW BUILDINGS 6 AND 7 TO HAVE A 13.75-FOOT
SEPARATION BETWEEN TWO STRUCTURES, FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PINE RIDGE ROAD
APPROXIMATELY 1400 FEET WEST OF LIVINGSTON ROAD
FURTHER DESCRIBED AS THE CYPRESS GLEN PUD IN
236
July 27, 2004
SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,
Item #17E
ORDINANCE 2004-49: PUDZ-2003-AR-4046, DWIGHT NADEAU,
OF RWA CONSULTING, INC., REPRESENTING WATERWAYS
JOINT VENTURE IV, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM RURAL
AGRICUL TURAL (A) AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(PUD, KNOWN AS HIBISCUS VILLAGE PUD) TO PUD TO BE
KNOWN AS SUMMIT PLACE IN NAPLES PUD FOR A
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 98.4+/-
ACRES AND 394 DWELLING UNITS FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 14625 COLLIER BOULEVARD WHICH IS ON
THE WEST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (C.R.951) AND
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET NORTH OF WOLFE ROAD, IN
SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
Item #17F
ORDINANCE 2004-50: A REVISED MANDATORY RECYCLING
ORDINANCE FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN THE
Item #17G- Continued Indefinitely
A RESOLUTION INCREASING THE REGULATORY
ASSESSMENT FEE FROM THE CURRENT 2.00/0 UP TO 3.75%
OF THE GROSS REVENUES FOR NONEXEMPT, INVESTOR-
OWNED WATER AND/OR WASTEWATER SYSTEMS SUBJECT
TO LOCAL REGULATION AND THE FLORIDA GOVERNMENT
237
July 27, 2004
UTILITY AUTHORITY, PURSUANT TO INTERLOCAL
Item #17H
ORDINANCE 2004-51: AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY
ORDINANCE NO. 87-60 TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY'S
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE PERMITS THAT
AUTHORIZE IN-THE-TRAVELED-ROAD SOLICITATIONS OF
Item #171
ORDINANCE 2004-52: ALLOWING THE OBTAINMENT OF
STATE OF FLORIDA AND FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION RECORD CHECKS THROUGH MANDATORY
FINGERPRINTING OF CURRENT AND NEW EMPLOYEES,
VENDORS AND CONTRACTORS IN CERTAIN POSITIONS
238
July 27, 2004
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair
at 4:17 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CON~L
~d4
DONNA FIALA, Chairman
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
- ~ .
-&¡ #'i~/à·::~1M){). IX
.. . ,:;~..t"·*;,tò ~11run . S
.; :'':':t".'n~11~.
Tì1~'~ rirínute~:~pbroved by the Board oncft d-~JL :; /1rJiJ i as
I, . '. . ./ ,. .., I ,
t a·· ~.o.· ....:. t d
presen e ",;;,:'. :::~ ~r' or as correc e .
~ , ~'("..l If"
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC. BY TERRI LEWIS.
239