BCC Minutes 02/22/2005 R
February 22, 2005
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, February 22, 2005
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: Fred W. Coyle
Frank Halas
Tom Henning
Donna Fiala
Jim Coletta
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Jim Mitchell, Office of the Clerk of Courts
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
II"'·
"
"
-'
'.
--~-
AGENDA
February 22, 2005
9:00 AM
Fred W. Coyle, Chairman, District 4
Frank Halas, Vice-Chairman, District 2
Donna Fiala, Commissioner, District 1
Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3
Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5
NOTICE: Al.L 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
THA T ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING
ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK
TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS
DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT
ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH
EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR
TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC
PETITIONS."
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
1
February 22, 2005
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. Associate Pastor David King, Berean Baptist Church
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. January 25,2005 - BCC/Regular Meeting
C. January 26, 2005 - BCC/District 3 Town Hall Meeting
D. January 28, 2005 - BCC/Parks and Boat Access Workshop
E. February 4, 2005 - BCC/Strategic Planning Workshop
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
4. PROCLAMATIONS
2
February 22, 2005
A. Proclamation to recognize the Veteran's Transportation Program. To be
accepted by Jim Elson; President of the Collier County Veteran's Council.
B. Proclamation to designate the month of March 2005 as National Purchasing
Month. To be accepted by Steve Carnell, Director of Collier County
Purchasing and his staff.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Chappell Wilson to present Commissioner Jim Coletta a commission as a
Kentucky Colonel.
B. Recommendation to recognize Carol Sykora, Investigator, Code
Enforcement, as Employee of the Month for February 2005.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request by Mr. William A. Petruzzi to discuss procedures for
serving notice to appear before the Code Enforcement Board.
B. Public Petition request by Jeff Bluestein to discuss CEB Case No. 97-029 on
behalf of Anthony Varano.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 12:30D.m.. unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. RZ-2003-AR-496I
Southern Development Company, Inc. represented by JeffL. Davidson, P.
E., of Davidson Engineering, Inc., requesting a rezoning from "A" Rural
Agricultural and "C-2ST" Commercial Convenience with a Special
Treatment overlay zoning districts to "C-3" Commercial Intermediate
zoning district for property located East of the US 41 and SR 951
intersection, further described in Section 3, Township ,51 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida. This property consists of 6.07+ acres.
3
February 22, 2005
B. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Brentwood Land
Partners, LLC., represènted by D. Wayne Arnold ofQ. Grady Minor &
Associated, P.A., requesting a rezoning from "A" Rural Agricultural And
"PUD" Planned Unit Development zoning district to a new PUD for
property located on the south side of Immokalee Road, adjacent to and east
of the Interstate 75 right-of-way, and west of Tarpon Bay Boulevard, in
Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
This property consisting of 175.67+ acres.
C. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2004-AR-60 15
Palm Springs, LLC, represented by Dwight Nadeau, ofRWA, Inc. and R.
Bruce Anderson, of Roetzel & Andress, requesting a rezone from the C-I
zoning district to the PUD zoning district to be known as Triad RPUD
Planned Unit Development which will include a maximum of 86 multi-
family residential housing units. The property is located on the north side of
Radio Lane, east of Palm Springs Boulevard, in Section 34, Township 49
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 10.75± acres.
D. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex-parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-A-2004-AR-
6142 Naples Syndications, LLC, represented by Karen Bishop ofPMS Inc.
of Naples, requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit
Development known as Warm Springs PUD by revising the PUD document
and Master Plan by increasing the allowed dwelling units by 290 units to a
maximum of 540 units, a density increase from 2.1 units per acre to 4.52
units per acre; to show a name change from Nicaea Academy PUD; and
reflect the PUD ownership change. The property is located on the east side
of Collier Boulevard, approximately one mile south of Immokalee Road, in
Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 119± acres.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Request Board to set the place and time for the Clerk, with the assistance of
the County Attorney's Office, to open and count the mail ballots of the
nominees to fill the vacancies on the Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory
Committee.
4
February 22, 2005
B. Discussion regarding the makeup of the Coastal Advisory Committee.
(Commissioner Coletta:)
C. Appointment of member to the Golden Gate Community Center Advisory
Committee.
D. Appointment of members to the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory
Committee.
E. Recommendation to declare a vacancy on the Immokalee Enterprise Zone
Development Agency.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to adopt by Resolution the revised 2005 Neighborhood
Traffic Management Program Manual contained policies, procedures and
techniques.
B. Presentation to the Board of County Commissioners to provide an overview
and status of traffic signals and the Advanced Traffic Management System
(A TMS); to present solutions taken to mitigate increased traffic volumes and
diminished roadway capacity; to state the status and objectives of Phase 2 of
the Advanced Traffic Management System; and to examine traffic
engineering techniques and technologies to implement in the future.
C. Recommendation to approve Collier County Government's participation
with WGCU Public Broadcasting as a financial partner to produce a
documentary series on the history and development of Collier County and its
communities at a cost of $33,000 per year, over a period of three (3) years.
D. Recommendation to Authorize Staff to Prepare an Ordinance Amending
Ordinance No. 92-60 Relating to Tourist Development Taxes, as Amended,
to expand the use of Category C-2 uses to include Municipal owned
museums; to change the percentages ofC-l& C-2 uses and to enable the use
of surplus Tourist Tax Funds for additional promotion.
E. Approve a Resolution urging the Florida Legislature to adopt legislation
allowing local governments to use photographic traffic control systems in
5
February 22, 2005
the detection and enforcement of red light violations to enhance safety at
signalized intersections.
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. This item continued from the Februarv 8, 2005 BCC Meetin2.
Recommendation to approve and execute the site improvement grant
agreement between the Community Redevelopment Agency and the grant
applicant within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle 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 that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the Hold Harmless Agreement between Collier County and Bayvest,
L.L.C., a Florida Limited Liability Corporation.
2) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of
"Reflection Lakes at Naples Phase IA", approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
3) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Torino &
Miramonte", approval of the standard form Construction and
6
February 22, 2005
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
4) Recommendation to approve Commercial Excavation Permit No.
59.920 "Bristol Pines Commercial Excavation", located in Section 35,
Township 48 South, Range 26 East.
5) Petition CARNY-2005-AR-7164, Mr. Benny Starling, Executive
Director, of the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce, requesting a
permit to conduct the annual Harvest Festival 2005 Fiesta on February
24th through March 6, 2005, at 110 North 1st Street in Immokalee.
6) Petition CARNY-2005-AR-7177, Mr. Keith Larson, Supervisor, of
the Golden Gate Community Center, requesting a permit to conduct
the annual Golden Gate Community Festival on February 24 through
27,2005, at the Golden Gate Community Center located at 4701
Golden Gate Parkway.
7) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution amending the Collier County
Administrative Code Fee Schedule of development-related review and
processing fees as provided for in Code of Laws Section 2-11.
8) An update to the Board of County Commissioners regarding a
previous request made by David E. Bryant, Esquire, to forego the
PUD amendment process in order to reduce density for the previously
approved H.D. Development PUD.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve the use of transportation disadvantaged
funds (126) to purchase a para-transit bus in the amount of $57,002
under State contract #FVPP-02-CA-1.
2) Recommendation to approve the use of transit enhancement funds
(313) to purchase a para-transit bus under State contract #FVPP-02-
CA-I and trolley decal wrap in the estimated amount of $64,000.
3) Recommendation to award a contract in the amount of $222,450 to
Aquagenix for the 2005 Australian Pine Removal Project (Project No.
7
February 22, 2005
51501), and approve a budget amendment to transfer funds in the
amount of $59, 100.
4) Reccomendation to Award Bid #05-3754 for annual contract for "Jack
& Bore and Directional Bore Operations II to American Boring and
Trenching, Inc.
5) Recommendation to approve a Purchase Agreement for the
conveyance of right-of-way required for the construction of
improvements to Rattlesnake Hammock Road between Polly Avenue
and Collier Boulevard, and constructing new entry wall features and
signage for Wing South, Inc. at the southern end of Skyway Drive (off
Rattlesnake Hammock Road (Project No. 60169). Estimated Fiscal
Impact: $74,415.00
6) Recommendation to approve, sign and execute a coordination
agreement between Collier County, as Community Transportation
Coordinator, and the David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc.
7) Recommendation to approve the Collier Metropolitan Planning
Organization's (MPO) Operating Budget for Transportation
Disadvantaged and Transit Planning Activities for FY 2004/05.
8) Recommendation to enter into a contract with Center for Urbanized
Transportation Research (CUTR) for the Transportation
Disadvantaged Service Plan, Transit Development Plan and Park &
Ride Study
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to approve a contract amendment to Hole Montes in
the amount of $185,000 and a work order Amendment to Malcolm
Pirnie in the amount $106,284 for the South County Water
Reclamation facility 16 MGD Expansion Project 73949.
2) Recommendation to approve component and service purchases
totaling $256,804.00, with total Project Costs totaling $307,143.00,
and authorize a Budget Amendment in the amount of$115,000.00 for
the installation and systems programming of nutrient monitoring
8
February 22, 2005
equipment at the South County Water Reclamation Facility, Project
725081.
3) Recommendation to Request Standardization and Approve Purchase
of a TV Truck from Community Utilities Environmental Services,
Inc., (CUES, Inc.) in the Amount of$198,300. TV Truck Purchase
4) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of
Lien for a Solid Waste residential account wherein the County has
received payment and said Lien is satisfied in full for the 1992 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal
impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
5) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of
Lien for a Solid Waste residential account wherein the County has
received payment and said Lien is satisfied in full for the 1995 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal
impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
6) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of
Lien for a Solid Waste residential account wherein the County has
received payment and said Lien is satisfied in full for the 1996 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal
impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
7) Recommendation to approve, execute and record Satisfactions for
certain Water and/or Sewer Impact Fee Payment Agreements. Fiscal
impact is $114.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
8) Recommendation to approve, execute and record a Satisfaction of a
Notice of Claim of Lien for Sanitary Sewer System Impact Fee. Fiscal
impact is $18.50 to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
9) Recommendation to award Contracts 05-3681 "Fixed Term
Instrumentation and Controls (I&C) Engineering Services" (Estimated
annual amount $1,200,000) to four (4) firms.
10) Recommendation to approve conveyance of an Easement to Florida
Power & Light Company (FP&L) as required to provide power to new
9
February 22, 2005
public water supply wells located at the North Collier Regional \Vater
Treatment Plant (NCRWTP) at a cost not to exceed $18.50, Project
Number 710111'.
11) Recommendation to award Contract #05-3767 to Gulf States, Inc. to
construct the Wastewater Collections Master Pump Station Facility
Rehabilitations, in the amount of $438,400, Project 72504.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve budget amendments to reflect an overall
decrease of $597 in the Older Americans Act programs and authorize
the Chairman to sign the contract between Collier County Board of
County Commissioners and Senior Solutions of Southwest Florida
D/B/A Area Agency on Aging.
2) Recommendation to approve the Summer Food Service Program
Grant in the amount of$586,400.
3) Request for County Sponsorship in the amount of $50,000 for US
Military Appearances during July 1 through July 5, 2005.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve award of Bid #05-3765 "Annual
Contract for Painting Contractors" for painting of County facilities to
Service Painting of Florida, Cover-All, Inc., and Perfectly Painted of
Collier County as a multiple award up to $350,000.
2) Report and ratify staff-approved change orders and changes to work
orders to Board-approved contracts.
3) That the Board approves termination of Verizon Wireless from
contract number 03-3551 for cause as provided in the contract.
4) Recommendation to approve award of Bid #05-3787 "On-Call
Plumbing Contractor" for plumbing repairs and maintenance of
County facilities to Shamrock Plumbing & Mechanical, Inc. as
primary and United Mechanical, Inc., and First Class Plumbing of
10
February 22, 2005
Florida, Inc. as secondary. Annual capital and maintenance expenses
are estimated at $500,000.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommendation to Approve a Grant A ward and Agreement Articles
for an Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program for the Isles of Capri
Fire Rescue District in the Amount of$225,000, Approve the
Purchase of a Fire Engine utilizing the Florida Sheriffs Bid #04-05-
0824 at a total cost of $250,000 and Approve the Necessary Budget
Amendments.
2) Approval to purchase additional Disaster Assistance Response
Trailers (DARTs) and portable generators for a total of $31 ,600 to
increase the County's ability to adequately shelter evacuees during
time of emergency, approve utilizing Bid #04-361 7, expired 1/3 % 5
and approval of a budget amendment transferring funds from an
operating line item to capital line items.
3) Board of County Commissioners approval to purchase a new Mobile
Command Vehicle (MCV) to replace the existing 1989 converted
John Deere RV utilizing an existing Henry County, GA bid #SB-05-
21-111204-1, Contract #HC-05-21 for a total cost of $279,450.
4) Recommendation to accept an Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
County Grant Award from the Florida Department of Health in the
amount of $112,672.82.
5) Approve an Out-of-Cycle FY2005 TDC Category "A" Grant
Application, Budget Amendment and Tourism Agreement with the
City of Naples for the dredging of Doctors Pass Project #90549 in the
amount of $598,500.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation to approve an amendment to the Florida Department
of Transportation grant agreement #407953-1-94-01 for the
11
February 22, 2005
Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) at the Immokalee Airport and
a Budget Amendment for $50,000.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement to
attend a function serving a valid public purpose. Will attend Marco
Island Historical Society - Marco 40th Anniversary - "Marco Sari"
Auction on February 26,2005 at the Marco Polo Restaurant; $100.00
to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
2) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Will attend the
Collier County Republican Executive Committee Lincoln Day
Celebration on March 12,2005 at the Naples Beach Hotel & Golf
Club; $75.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous Items to File Record with Action as Directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve and authorize the making of an Offer of
Judgment pursuant to Section 73.032, Fla. Stat., to Respondents,
Bradley Damico and Darryl Damico ("Respondents"), in the amount
of$16,330.00, as full compensation, excepting attorney's fees and
costs, for the acquisition arising out of the condemnation of Parcel
No. 134 in Collier County v. Terry L. Lichliter, et aI., Case No. 03-
2273-CA.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Authorize
the County Attorney's Office to Make a Business Damage Offer to
Settle a Claim for Business Damages by Circle K Stores, Inc.
Associated with the Acquisition of Parcel 739 in the Lawsuit Styled
Collier County v. First National Bank of Naples., et aI., Case No. 04-
3587-CA (Immokalee Road Project #66042).
12
February 22, 2005
3) Recommendation to approve the Proposals of Settlement for
Engineering Costs and Planning Costs 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).
4) Recommendation to approve an Agreed Order A warding Appraisal
Fees as to Parcel 153 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. John F.
Sudal, et aI., Case No. 02-5168-CA (Immokalee Road Project 60018).
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. SE-2004-AR-6772, A Resolution amending Resolution No. 04-326, the
Lutgert Companies Parking Exemption, by providing for an amendment to
correct a scrivener's error due to the incorrect reference to the C-4 Zoning
District in the Recitals and Operative sections of the Resolution and
changing the references to the correct zoning district of RMF -6.
B. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex-parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2004-AR-5611
Seacrest School, Inc., represented by Richard Y ovanovich of Goodlette,
Coleman and Johnson, PA, requesting a PUD Rezone from "E" Estates and
"E" Estates zoning with an approved conditional use for the existing school
facility to "PUD" Planned Unit Development for expansion of the existing
school facility." The property is located at 7100 Davis Boulevard, in Section
8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of
39.4± acres.
13
February 22, 2005
C. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex-parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-A-2004-AR-
5879 Champion Lakes'Development, LLC, represented by Richard
Y ovanovich, of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, P A, requesting revisions
to the PUD document to abandon the previously authorized recreational
vehicle use and replace with conventional mixed residential dwelling unit
types, and change the name of the PUD to Copper Cove Preserve RPUD. A
maximum of 300 residential dwelling units are requested on 101.5 acres,
with a project density of approximately 2.96 units per acre. The property is
located on the north side of Championship Drive, in Sections 11, 14 & 15,
Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
D. This item is beint! continued indefinitely. An Ordinance amending
Ordinance 04-12, Section Four entitled Exemptions and Exclusions From
Certificate Requirements and providing for an effective date.
E. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE MARCH 8.. 2005 BCC
MEETING. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-A..2003-
AR-4942 - Conquest Development USA, LC, requesting a PUD to PUD
rezone for property located on the East Side of Collier Boulevard (CR 951)
and approximately 1 3/4 Miles South of Tamiami Trail (Us 41), further
described as Silver Lakes, in Section 10 & 15, Township 51 South, Range
26 East, Collier County, Florida.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
14
February 22, 2005
February 22, 2005
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Mudd.
Would you all please stand for the invocation and Pledge of
Allegiance.
Dr. -- or Pastor David King of the Berean Baptist Church will
offer the invocation.
Is the -- Pastor King here?
PASTOR KING: I'm here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh. Would you step up to the mike,
please.
PASTOR KING: Let us pray. Dear, Heavenly Father, we thank
you for this time we can come together, and, Lord, we pray for our
commissioners. Lord, we'd just ask that you would grant them wisdom
and great judgment as they make decisions for this county.
Father, we thank you for all the public servants that are
represented today and, Father, for their willingness and their desire to
serve this community, to serve this county.
Lord, I ask that you would give them the wisdom that's needed as
many decisions will come across their desk today, that you would give
them the judgment that is needed to make these decisions, and Father,
we pray for the prosperity of Collier County, that you would bless and
you would work in this county.
And, Father, we thank you for all the different servants that are
here. May you give them words of wisdom, may you guide then in the
decisions made today, and, Father, I pray for your guidance in the
meeting today.
Lord, we pray all this in your Son's precious name, amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Pastor King.
Would you please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Page 2
February 22, 2005
County Manager Mudd, do you have any changes to the agenda?
Item #2A
REGULAR CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, but first I'm going to defer over to Mr.
Weigel, the county attorney --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- to see ifhe has add-ons over the agenda changes
that are on the sheet.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Jim and Mr. Chairman. One note for
the record on the agenda is agenda item 14A, which is a two-part item
relating to grant agreements from the Bayshore/Gateway Community
Redevelopment Agency, which this board is sitting as the CRA board
in that decision.
The two elements of that is, one is a grant agreement award for
Ms. Sharon King, and she has advised me that she would like to have
that withdrawn and continued indefinitely. And the other element is an
LLE company, and I'd ask if the board approves that, that they will
recognize it as the -- with the appropriate dates on the -- on the
contract that's in the package. It may require a change. It has a March
5th date.
Since this is not on consent but regular agenda, that will come up
later on and be ready for discussion. But early on I wanted to let you
know that Ms. King has asked that her element of that item be
withdrawn and continued indefinitely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala has a question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Even though she's withdrawn,
may we discuss that issue a little bit, or is it better not to do that at this
time?
Page 3
February 22, 2005
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think that you could have discussion
probably at that time when the agenda item comes up, would be fine.
I'll help steer with you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions of
the county attorney?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager?
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, good morning.
Agenda changes, Board of County Commissioners meeting, February
22nd,2005.
Continue item 6B to the March 8th, 2005, BCC meeting. It was a
public petition request by Jeff Bluestein to discuss Code Enforcement
Board case number 97-029 on behalf of Anthony Varano. This was
petitioner's request.
The next item 8 -- is item 8B. The title on the printed agenda is
missing the petition number and the new PUD name.
The title should read, petition PUDZ-A-2003-AR-5168,
Brentwood Land Partners, LLC, represented by D. Wayne Arnold of
Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., requesting a rezoning from "A"
rural agricultural and "PUD" planned unit development zoning district
to a new PUD to be known as Malibu Lakes PUD for property located
on the south side of Immokalee Road adjacent to the east of the
Interstate 75 right-of-way and west of Tarpon Bay Boulevard in
Section 30, Township 48 south, Range 26 east, Collier County,
Florida. This property is consisting of 175.67 plus acres, and that's at
staffs request.
The next item is item 16A 7 continued to the March 22nd, 2005,
BCC meeting. It's a recommendation to adopt a resolution amending
the Collier County administrative code fee schedule of
development-related review and processing fees as provided for in
Page 4
February 22, 2005
code of laws section 2-11, and that continuance was at Commissioner
Henning's request.
Item 16B 8 should read: Recommendation to enter into the
negotiation of a contract with Center for Urbanized Transportation
Research, CUTR, for the Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan,
Transit Development Plan, and Park and Ride Study, and that's at
staffs request.
The next item is to move item 16C2 to 1 OF. That's a
recommendation to approve component and service purchases totaling
$256,804 with total project costs totaling $307,143, and authorize a
budget amendment in the amount of $115,000 for the installation and
systems programming of nutrient monitoring equipment at the South
County Water Reclamation Facility, project 725081, and that's at
Commissioner Coyle's request.
The next item is item 16G 1, and it should read, recommendation
to approve an increase, rather than approve an amendment in the
Florida Department of Transportation grant agreement number
407953-1-94-01 for the Environmental Resource Permit, ERP, at the
lmmokalee Airport, and a budget amendment for $50,000.
The next item is to move item 17C to 8E, and that's
PUDZ-A-2004-AR-5879, Champion Lakes Development, LLC,
represented by Richard Y ovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman, and
Johnson, P .A., requesting revisions to the PUD document to abandon
the previously authorized recreational vehicle use and replace with
conventional mixed residential dwelling unit types and change the
name of the PUD to Copper Cover Preserve RPUD.
A maximum of 300 residential dwelling units are requested on
101.5 acres with a project density of approximately 2.96 units per
acre.
The property is located on the north side of Champion Drive in
Section 11, 14 and 15, Township 51 south, Range 26 east, Collier
County, Florida, and that's at Commissioner Halas' request.
Page 5
February 22, 2005
There's a note item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1 :00 p.m.
today. It said that on the front sheet of the announcement. When you
get into the agenda, about the second page before the item, it says
12:30. That was a leftover from the last meeting. Again, items 7 and 8
to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. today.
We have one time certain item, Mr. Chairman, and that's item
10D, to be heard at 10:30 a.m., and that's a recommendation to
authorize staff to prepare an ordinance amending ordinance number
92-60 relating to the tourist development taxes as amended to expand
the use of category C-2 uses to include municipal owned museums, to
change the percentage of C-1 and C- 2 uses, and to enable the use of
surplus tourist tax funds for additional promotions.
That's all I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Mudd.
Commissioners, I'll start with Commissioner Halas. Do you have
any other changes to the agenda or any ex parte disclosures for the
summary or consent agenda?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning, Commissioners. At
this time I don't have any other changes to the agenda, and on the
summary agenda, I have no disclosures to come forward on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. I have no
disclosures, but I do have two items from the consent agenda I'd like
to pull just for brief discussion. One is 16B2 and the other one is
16H2.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: 16B2 would be lOG, and 16H2 would be 10H.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 10 what?
MR. MUDD: H.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: So I've got 16B2 and 16H2; is that correct,
Commissioner Coletta?
Page 6
February 22, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 16B2 and 16H2, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is that all?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have nothing to add to the
agenda nor to take off of the agenda. With regard to the summary
agenda, I have -- I have some e-mails on 17B and calls on that. And
on 17C, I have e-mails, and I have them in my folder that I will have
filed for public viewing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no further changes to
today's agenda, and I have no ex parte on the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
And I have no further changes, and I have no ex parte disclosures
for the summary agenda.
Do I have a motion for the approval of today's regular, consent,
and summary --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- agenda?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved -- second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Coletta, second
by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous.
Page 7
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
February 22. 2005
Continue Item 6B to the March 8. 2005 BCC meetina: Public Petition request by
Jeff Bluestein to discuss CEB Case No. 97-029 on behalf of Anthony Varano.
(Petitioner request.)
Item 8B: The title on the printed agenda is missing the petition number and the
new PUD name. The title should read: Petition PUDZ A-2003-AR-5168 Brentwood
Land Partners, LLC., represented by D. Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor &
Associates, P.A., requesting a rezoning from IIA" Rural Agricultural and IIPUD"
Planned Unit Development zoning district t a new PUD to be known as Malibu
Lakes PUD for property located on the south side of Immokalee Road, adjacent to
and east of the Interstate 75 right-of-way, and west of Tarpon Bay Boulevard, in
Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. This
property consisting of 175.67+ acres. (Staff request.)
Item 16A7 continued to the March 22. 2005 BCC meetina: Recommendation to
adopt a Resolution amending the Collier County Administrative Code Fee
Schedule of development-related review and processing fees as provided for in
Code of laws Section 2-11. (Commissioner Henning request.)
Item 16B8 should read: Recommendation to enter into the negotiation of a
contract with Center for Urbanized Transportation Research (CUTR) for the
Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan, Transit Development Plan and Park &
Ride Study. (Staff request.)
Move Item 16C2 to 10F: Recommendation to approve component and service
purchases totaling $256,804 with total project costs totaling $307,143 and
authorize a budget amendment in the amount of $115,000 for the installation and
systems programming of nutrient monitoring equipment at the South County
Water Reclamation Facility, Project 725081. (Commissioner Coyle's request.)
Item 16G1 should read: Recommendation to approve an increase (rather than
approve an amendment) in the Florida Department of Transportation grant
agreement #407953-1-94-01 for the Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) at the
Immokalee Airport and a budget amendment for $50,000.
Move Item 17C to 8E: PUDZ-A-2004-AR-5879 Champion lakes Development, llC,
represented by Richard Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, PA,
requesting revisions to the PUD document to abandon the previously authorized
recreational vehicle use and replace with conventional mixed residential dwelling
unit types, and change the name of the PUD to Copper Cove Preserve RPUD. A
maximum of 300 residential dwelling units are requested on 101.5 acres, with a
project density of approximately 2.96 units per acre. The property is located on
the north side of Championship Drive, in Sections 11, 14 and 15, Township 51
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Commissioner Halas request.)
NOTE: Items 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m. (rather than 12:30
p.m.), unless otherwise noted.
Time Certain Items:
Item 10D to be heard at 10:30 a.m. Recommendation to authorize staff to prepare
an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 92-60 relating to Tourist Development
Taxes, as amended, to expand the use of Category C-2 uses to include Municipal
owned museums; to change the percentages of C-1 and C-2 uses and to enable
the use of surplus Tourist Tax Funds for additional promotion.
Item #2B, #2C, #2D, and #2E
February 22, 2005
MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 25, 2005 BCC/REGULAR
MEETING, MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 26, 2005
BCC/DISTRICT 3 TOWN HALL MEETING, MINUTES OF THE
JANUARY 28,2005 BCC/PARKS AND BOAT ACCESS
WORKSHOP AND THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 4, 2005
BCC/STRATEGIC PLANNING WORKSHOP-APPROVED AS
£RESENIED
Is there a motion to approve the January 25th, 2005, BCC regular
meeting; January 26th, 2005, BCC District 3 town hall meeting;
January 28th, 2005, BCC parks and boat access workshop; and
February 4, 2005, BCC strategic planning workshop?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Moved by Commissione Halas.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It is unanimous.
We're going to service awards now, County Manager?
MR. MUDD: Sir, there are no service awards today. We go to
proclamations, sir.
Page 8
February 22, 2005
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION TO RECOGNIZE THE VETERAN'S
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The first proclamation is a
proclamation to recognize the Veteran's Transportation Program, to be
accepted by Jim Elson, president of the Collier County Veteran's
Council.
Jim, are you here? Oh, there you are. Jim, if you'll come up here,
stand and face the audience.
MR. ELSON: Okay. May we invite the drivers up?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You sure should, yes, by all means.
MR. ELSON: Gentlemen. And we have some other members of
the Veteran's Council. Ted, Gil, Fran, would you like to come up?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We got everybody?
MR. ELSON: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, great.
Whereas, the Veteran's Transportation Program is a cooperative
effort between the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
and the Collier County Veteran's Council; and,
Whereas, the program has provided free transportation since
1992 for veterans to VA medical facilities in Fort Myers, Tampa, Bay
Pines, and other facilities located in South Florida; and,
Whereas, volunteer drivers transport veterans in two donated
DA V vans owned by the Veteran's Administration and one vehicle
provided by the Ford Motor Company under their fleet test program,
and all three vehicles are stationed at the Collier County Veteran's
Service Office; and,
Whereas, in 2004, our 21 drivers transported 533 veterans to VA
medical appointments, including 125 trips to Bay Pines and 139 trips
to Fort Myers; over 1,900 volunteer hours, and over 60,000
Page 9
February 22, 2005
accident- free miles were logged; and,
Whereas, this transportation program could not exist without the
dedication of the volunteer drivers and the support of their families to
achieve the goal of prompt and efficient transportation to VA medical
appointments.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the Veteran's
Transportation Program, its volunteer drivers, and office staff be
recognized as valuable assets to the veterans they transport and to the
community that they serve.
Done and ordered this 22nd day of February 2005, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Fred Coyle,
Chairman.
Commissioners, I make a motion that we accept this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion is seconded by
Commissioner Halas.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous.
Thank you very much, Jim. And thank you, veterans, for helping
us out here.
MR. ELSON: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want to say something?
MR. ELSON : Yeah, I'll say a couple of words.
Page 10
February 22, 2005
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Remind him today's Washington's
birthday.
MR. ELSON: I wouldn't think of that.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Mr. Mitchell, Colonel Mudd, it is
a privilege to accept this proclamation on behalf of the Veteran's
Transportation Service, and it is amazing what 21 people can do for so
many good citizens of our county.
And it is most fitting that this proclamation is issued on the
birthday of George Washington, our first general of the United States
Army 230 years ago.
Veterans continue to serve veterans every day.
Gentlemen, thank you very much for your services. I appreciate
it. And God bless this country and all who defend her.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Jim.
MR. ELSON: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4 B
PROCLAMATION TO DESIGNATE THE MONTH OF MARCH
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The next proclamation will be read by
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm going to ask director of
purchasing, Steve Carnell, and his staff to come forward, please.
Whereas, purchasing professionals playa significant role in the
efficiency and effectiveness of both government and business; and,
Whereas, purchasing professionals, through their combined
purchasing power, spend billions of dollars each year and have a
significant influence upon the economic conditions throughout the
world; and,
Page 11
February 22, 2005
Whereas, Collier County Purchasing Department provide a --
valuable added services to -- such as contract negotiations,
administration, vendor management, training; and,
Whereas, the Collier County Purchasing Department and
professional purchasing association throughout the world engages in
special efforts during the month of March to perform (sic) the public
about the important role of playing (sic) by the purchasing
professionals and businesses (sic) industry and government.
And now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, the importance of
purchasing professionals in general and Collier County Purchasing
Department in particular, and hereby declare the month of March
2005, as national purchasing month.
Done in this order, 27th (sic) day of February 2005, and signed
by the chair.
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we approve this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: A motion by Commissioner Henning
approved -- or seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Steve, get that proclamation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Steve -- Steve, do you want to say
something? Thank you very much. Do you want to say something?
MR. CARNELL: For the record, Steve Carnell, your purchasing
Page 12
February 22,2005
and general services director. Let me just thank the five of you for
taking a moment to recognize your purchasing staff this morning.
These folks work extremely hard, and I am very proud of all that
they do for you and the taxpayers every day.
I wanted to make you aware of a couple of things. We are
involved, as part of this purchasing month and our regular business, of
moving forward with some enhancements to our contracting system.
We have worked very closely with the county attorney and clerk
of courts finance department to update our standard contracts for
construction and design services and other standard agreements and
will be bringing those to the board for adoption in March.
We're also engaged in various outreach activities right now,
including an effort to promote more bidding and competition among
landscapers. As we know, that that's an area that the board has
prioritized for landscape improvement, and we're looking to build
more competition in that area.
We actually had a recent workshop last week and had more than
20 vendors in attendance who all could possibly be new bidders to the
system in the future, and -- so we're making an effort to bring more
competition into the workplace and to get more value for the tax
dollar.
And we are -- we've just recently conducted training on these
new agreements and, again, are going to be bringing them to the board
in March, and we greatly appreciate all the support that we get from
this board every week. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Item #5A
CHAPPELL WILSON TO PRESENT COMMISSIONER JIM
COLETTA A COMMISSION AS A KENTUCKY COLONEL-
Page 13
--.,-.-
February 22,2005
ERESENIED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Next we'll go to presentations. Mr.
Chappell Wilson has a presentation to make to Commissioner Coletta.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of
the Honorable Ernie Fletcher, governor of the Commonwealth of
Kentucky, it is a pleasure to present Jim Coletta a commission as a
Kentucky colonel. This honor is bestowed upon Commissioner Coletta
in recognition of his hard work, dedication, and desire to make Collier
County, Florida, a better place to live, work, and play for the many
Kentuckians who now call Collier County home.
In order to help people understand why the governor of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky commissions various people as
Kentucky colonels, we must review its history.
The highest honor awarded by the Commonwealth of Kentucky
is that of Kentucky colonel. Its colonels are Kentucky's ambassadors
of good will and fellowship around the world. Commissions as
Kentucky colonels are presented for contributions to the person's
community, state or nation, or for special achievements of all kinds.
With Commissioner Coletta's commission as a Kentucky colonel,
the governor recognizes his service to others.
A list of Kentucky colonels is a Who's Who of outstanding men
and women around the world. The certificate, signed by the governor
and the secretary of state and bearing the Great Seal of Kentucky has
hung on the walls of such distinguished leaders as President Lyndon
B. Johnson and the English Prime Minister Winston Churchill.
Astronaut John Glenn, America's first man in space, was
commissioned while orbiting Earth on his historic mission.
It all began when Kentucky's first governor, Isaac Shelby, gave
his son-in-law, Charles S. Todd, the title of colonel of his staff. Shelby
later issued commissions to all who enlisted in his regiment in the War
of 1812. Later Kentucky governors commissioned colonels to act as
Page 14
~..."----
February 22, 2005
their protective guard; they wore uniforms and were present at most
official functions.
The "Honorable Order of Kentucky Colonels" was founded in
1932 by Governor Ruby Laffoon and has since been officially
incorporated as a charitable organization. Over the years the colonels
have supported many worthy causes.
Each year on the first Saturday of May, which is the running of
the famous Kentucky Derby, Kentucky colonels from all over the
world gather for a celebration of fellowship and the true spirit of
Kentucky hospitality.
Kentucky colonels are invited to attend the governor's Kentucky
Derby breakfast on the lawn of the state capital.
On behalf of the many Kentucky residents now living in Collier
County, Florida, we say thank you, Colonel Jim Coletta, for all the
things you do for us. Congratulations. Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is a very good friend of
ours.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: From New York.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Thanks again.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd just like to say that one day I
happened to go by Jim Coletta's office, and he had a pail sitting on his
table and it says that -- something to the effect that every bucket
should have -- be full of chicken. And so I was just wondering when
he's going to start growing his beard, and then number two, when he
was going to start handing out the fried chicken, because he said every
bucket should have a chicken in it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, Colonel Sanders was one
of our notable colonels that has also been inducted into this wonderful
organization, and I appreciate to be in there with him and Winston
Churchill and a number of other people.
Page 15
^,--
February 22, 2005
Thanks again.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Colonel Coletta.
Item #5B
RECOMMENDATION TO RECOGNIZE CAROL SYKORA,
INVESTIGATOR, CODE ENFORCEMENT, AS EMPLOYEE OF
We now have a presentation to make to our Employee of the
Month.
Jim, do you have a presentation to read?
MR. MUDD: No, I don't have it with me right now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Hang on. Yes, I can do it. Hang on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: The employee -- the employee of the month
recognition goes to Carol Sykora. If she could please come forward.
She's being -- she is being recognized not only for her -- for her daily
accomplishments, but they went well above and beyond her normal
job duties.
She saved the life of one of her citizens while putting her own
life at risk. While investigating a case in Golden Gate Estates, Carol
rescued a man who was drowning in quicksand. Carol herself was
sinking but managed to extricate herself reaching back in to grab the
fellow who, by that time, was up to his waist and was not able to help
himself. She managed to pull him onto the side and out of the sand at
great personal risk.
Carol sustained personal injuries, from which she is still
recovering, while performing this heroic act.
Carol has wonderful interpersonal skills. This ability to work
Page 16
'">'..-,-.......... -.-------."'.-
February 22,2005
well with others has earned her the trust and respect of those citizens
of Collier County whom she serves as well as her co-workers. Carol is
thorough in the execution of her job duties and strives to be as fair as
possible in the investigation and validation of code violation
complaints.
She works closely with citizens and business owners to correct
violations and spends the extra time needed to bring about
compliance. Carol possesses a level one certification with a Florida
Association of Code Enforcement.
Carol's community service involves giving status reports of cases
pending and providing information on new or modified code
requirements. Carol regularly attends association meetings of the
neighborhoods within the geographic area to which she is responsible.
Carol is a perfect example of an employee who serves to the pub
-- whose service to the public exceeds expectation.
Again, I present Carol Sykora, investigator, code enforcement as
the Employee of the Month for February 2005.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Did you get a check from him?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. Fred kept it for himself.
(Applause.)
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY MR. WILLIAM A. PETRUZZI
TO DISCUSS PROCEDURES FOR SERVING NOTICE TO
APPEAR BEFORE THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -
PETITIONER TO APPEAL TO THE CEB REGARDING FINES
AND COUNTY ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS PROCEDURES WITH
CER£HAIRMAN
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Carol.
Page 1 7
February 22, 2005
And I think that brings us to public petitions.
MR. MUDD: Public -- and it's 6A, and it's a public petition
request by Mr. William A. Petruzzi to discuss procedures for serving
notice to appear before the Code Enforcement Board.
Mr. Petruzzi, could you please come up. Thank you.
MR. PETRUZZI: Good morning, Commissioners. First thing I'd
like to do is make a slight apology to Michelle Arnold for comments
that I made to her prior to the meeting of the Code Enforcement
Board.
I have a little handout so you people can kind of stay with what
I'm trying to come across. Hopefully I got -- have enough for them.
Basically what I want to talk about is method of notification from
the county Code Enforcement Board. This came about at the first
issuance of a complaint to properties I own. It was on 3/30 of '04.
The code enforcement officer came out to my house at 880 2nd
Street Northeast and posted it out there. Also stated in the article was
that I was supposed to have received a certified letter. It never
happened.
Came to the -- a hearing they (sic) were scheduled, and a
statement was presented, or the violations were posted down on
Bayshore somewhere in the time period of 11/3/04. The meeting for
the code enforcement was scheduled for 11/29. It was not on the
notice.
It was stated that I had received a certified letter, which never
happened. And I was served these -- the paperwork, the findings of the
hearing on December the 24th.
I had a 20-day time frame from the time of period to comply with
what the Code Enforcement Board ordered. They waited until the
24th, which was beyond the time limit I had to comply.
Also they took the time -- it was a week before anything was
signed and even started moving from the Code Enforcement Board.
Mr. Flagel signed it on the 6th of December. It was notarized on
Page 18
February 22, 2005
that date. And Jean Rawson, the attorney for code enforcement,
certified that I had been sent a notification by mail, which I did not
receive. I have not gotten one; therefore, we have little errors in there.
You know, my complaint is, if they're going to do things, let's get
a correct method and follow it. Let's not, okay, we're going to post it
out at your residence for the violations, but we're going to have a
hearing and we're going to post it down there and we're not going to
notify you by mail or come out to your residence and post it. You
know, this, to me, is not a fair go at telling anybody, you have to be
there.
I was cited by -- in the paperwork from the hearing that I did not
appear . Well, if I'm not notified, I can't appear. You know, it's that
simple. If you're not told to be there, you can't be there and you won't
be there. You don't know.
And this is my complaint with this thing, that they don't have
their notification procedures in order, or if they do, they do not follow
them, you know.
So at the end of the 20-day period, the recommendation of the
Code Enforcement Board was a $250-a-day fine. I was already five
days past that before I even found out about it. You know, there's over
$1,000 in fines that, why was I not notified in a timely manner? You
know, I think that their methods are wrong. And this is why I asked to
see you people and come before the board and state this, you know.
It's --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Petruzzi, would you mind if we
asked code enforcement people to address this issue so that we have a
full understanding of the problem?
MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, code
enforcement director. Mr. Petruzzi was served in accordance with
what the state statute indicates. He was sent a certified letter, a notice
of hearing for the hearing but did not pick it up, apparently, or never
received it because it was returned back to our office.
Page 19
February 22, 2005
In those particular cases, we post the property. We posted the
property .
In addition to receiving the certified mail, a regular mail notice of
hearing was sent to Mr. Petruzzi. He's indicating that he hasn't
received it or never received it. I don't know whether or not that is the
case, but my coordinator for Code Enforcement Board has signed an
affidavit that both the certified letter as well as the regular letter was
sent to Mr. Petruzzi.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the notification posted at the
property, was that done in the -- with the appropriate advance notice
before any fine was applied?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes. The notification was posted 10 days prior to
the hearing, and it was also posted on the courthouse steps, which is
what we are required to do, and it needs to be done at least 10 days
prior to the hearing itself.
Mr. Petruzzi wasn't present at the hearing, and he is correct that
he did not receive the actual order from the board within a sufficient
time. The board asked a process server to serve that notice, and the
process server did not do his job accordingly.
And he did meet with me, and we did extend the time period
based on when he actually received that order from the board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If -- the purpose of this hearing is just to
determine if there are enough commissioners who are willing to bring
this back for a formally advertised hearing, Mr. Petruzzi.
But what I'm trying to explore here is, is there a way that the
code enforcement can get together with Mr. Petruzzi to work out some
arrangement to compensate for the delay in the order of the board
getting to him?
MS. ARNOLD: We have already done that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've already done that?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, we have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So from your standpoint, Mr.
Page 20
February 22, 2005
Petruzzi has suffered no damage as a result of that delay; is that
correct?
MS. ARNOLD: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. ARNOLD: We gave him -- based on when he received it,
the time period started with respect to the amount of time that the
board's order gave him, so he wasn't penalized for having received that
order late.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Mr. Petruzzi, what's your response
to that?
MR. PETRUZZI: Well, if the Code Enforcement Board's
dropping all fines and everything, that's --
MS. ARNOLD: That's not what I said.
MR. PETRUZZI: Well, this is what I'm looking at, because in the
order of the postings thatwas posted on Bayshore, it did not have the
date of the hearing on it.
Now, even there, if you are posting it on the property, it still
should have a date of when the hearing is. This is your responsibility
to tell me I have to be somewhere on a certain day.
MS. ARNOLD: That's correct.
MR. PETRUZZI: And it failed to do so.
MS. ARNOLD: No, it didn't. It did have the date of the hearing
on it.
MR. PETRUZZI: I have a copy of it right here in my hand, and it
does not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I have questions by Commissioner
Coletta, and then Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. This is where Mr. Petruzzi
just left off. Does the copy that you have in front of you indicate that
there is a date posted on there for the hearing?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes. The notice of hearing that I have has on
November 29th, 2004.
Page 21
February 22, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But your copy doesn't show
that?
MR. PETRUZZI: No, it doesn't, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't understand that. Where
did you get your copy from, from Bayshore?
MR. PETRUZZI: I took the posting from Bayshore. I was down
there, I picked it up.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And is that in our packet?
MR. PETRUZZI: Then, this is it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, we don't have it in our
packet, right?
MR. PETRUZZI: I don't have a date saying --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm concerned.
MR. PETRUZZI: -- a hearing on it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do have some concerns here
about the imbalance.
Did you comply with everything that was supposed to be done in
the end?
MR. PETRUZZI: I've tried to. I went down there, I got a -- to the
building department, I pulled a permit for the demolition of the
building, because code enforcement, when this all started, insisted
there are no permits or anything involved in the structure or permits
were not finalized.
And back in the '80s I worked for Collier County building
department, and I know that we did go out and do all permits to make
sure they were brought up to date and put on the tax rolls. This was
the purpose.
Now, the property has been on the tax rolls since 1977 as a
building, so --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, we could do this
whole thing right now, but I think there's too many things in here that
are unanswered that we need to have a full report. I, for one, want to
Page 22
February 22, 2005
bring it back to the commission.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In regards to the letter that was sent
to him, was it the correct home address that was sent to him, the
registered letter?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes. It was sent to his residence.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And --
MS. ARNOLD: As well as the location for the property. What
the -- the statute requires us to send it to the actual property address
that is noted in the tax collector's and the property appraiser's office,
which is different from actually what his residence is, so we did more
than we were required to by law.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So did you send the letter to his
residence or did you send it to the property that was in violation?
MS. ARNOLD: Both.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Both?
MS. ARNOLD: Both.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And where did you get the letter
back from, was that the property that was in violation or was it the
property of his residence?
MS. ARNOLD: From his residence.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So could he not accept the letter and
it would be returned?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ah, okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, you
expressed an interest in having this come back.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just one question if I may, and
then -- my concern is, was the letter marked refused or undeliverable?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think on those letters, they just send
them back --
MS. ARNOLD: I don't know if it stated--
Page 23
February 22,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- after a certain time period.
MS. ARNOLD: -- anything. It just got returned back to our
office, and it was signed by a records room specialist. It didn't indicate
__ they made attempts. They made three attempts and it was not
received.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. They recorded that they had made
three attempts to deliver?
MS. ARNOLD: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Thank you.
MS. ARNOLD: Jennifer, did you want to speak to where we are
at least in the process and whether or not -- because this is a hearing
that went before the Code Enforcement Board, his recourse is to
appeal it through the court, not really to appeal it to the Board of
County Commissioners, so I'm not really sure we can go back and
rehear the case, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That does raise a legal question. Do we
have the authority to overturn a Code Enforcement Board decision?
MR. WEIGEL: No, you have -- you've delegated the authority to
the Code Enforcement Board. Clearly if you wish to bring this matter
before you for further fact finding and direction to staff, you can do
so, but you cannot change what the Code Enforcement Board may
ultimately determine.
And Ms. Belpedio has mentioned to me during the course of the
discussion this morning that, in fact, there is a potential to be set, and
it is not set at this point, a hearing before the Code Enforcement Board
relating to the imposition of fines, at which point mitigating
circumstances could be discussed with the Code Enforcement Board,
not withstanding that they have previously found that there is a
violation.
You may have some additional questions, and Ms. Belpedio may
have something further she wishes to add to the record.
No, not at this point. If you have questions, we will respond.
Page 24
February 22, 2005
MS. ARNOLD: So he does have an ability to go back to the
board, but -- with respect to the fine amounts that have accrued, and
then the board has the ability to either forgive those fines or reduce
those fines.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To the enforcement board?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there anyone else who wants to
bring this back to the county commission? We have no authority to
deal with it, unfortunately.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Mr. Petruzzi, the board has not
voted to bring this back for a formal hearing by the commissioners
because we do not have the authority to deal with it. We would
suggest that you appeal to the Code Enforcement Board for a relief
from the fines if you feel that you have a right to do so.
And I believe that Ms. Arnold has told us that they have already
mitigated that portion of the fine that might have resulted from any
delay in your notification, so I think that's your primary course of
action.
MR. PETRUZZI: Well, sir, we probably would have avoided me
being here if Mr. Flagel would have allowed me to speak when Ms.
Arnold had me there. She gave me the date that I was going to appear,
put me on the agenda, and he flat denied me the rights to speak. And
this kind of -- is not what I would call fair legal procedures in any
manner.
You know, he claimed that he would be blind-sided by what I
would say. Ms. Arnold mentioned what I was going over and why,
and he flat refused to allow it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then I would request that county
attorney, perhaps, have a discussion with the chair of the board --
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- of Code Enforcement Board to make
Page 25
February 22, 2005
sure that the appropriate procedures are followed, okay.
MR. PETRUZZI: He was commenting that, if I allow anybody to
come in and speak. I was on the agenda to speak; therefore, I'm not
just a walk-in and he would be not setting any precedence by letting
someone come in, which is where he took this matter. And he cut me
out of it completely and entirely right then and there without giving
me the opportunity.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I understand. We've asked the county
attorney to discuss that issue with the chairman of that board. Thank
you very much.
MR. PETRUZZI: Thank you very much, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good luck.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY JEFF BLUESTEIN TO
DISCUSS CEB CASE NO. 97-029 ON BEHALF OF ANTHONY
VARANO - CONTINUED TO THE MARCH 8, 2005 BCC
MEEIING
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, item 6B is continued till 8 March.
That brings us to agenda item 9. The first -- and that's Board of
County Commissioners.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2005-97: SETTING MONDAY, MARCH 14, 2005,
AT 2:00 P.M., IN THE BCC CHAMBERS, FOR THE CLERK,
WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE, TO OPEN AND COUNT THE MAIL BALLOTS OF THE
NOMINEES TO FILL THE VACANCIES ON THE PELICAN BAY
Page 26
February 22, 2005
The first item is 9A, and it's request board to set the place and
time for the clerk, with the assistance of the county attorney's office,
to open and count the mail ballots of the nominees to fill the vacancies
on the Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There's a motion to approve and a
second -- by Commissioner Halas, a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Is there any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous.
Item #9B
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE MAKEUP OF THE COASTAL
ADVISORY COMMITTEE - TO BE BROUGHT BACK AT A
FUTURE BCC MEETING REGARDING THE MAKE UP OF THE
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item,
which is 9B. It's a discussion regarding the make-up of the Coastal
Advisory Committee, and that's at Commissioner Coletta's request.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I have to be honest with
Page 27
February 22, 2005
you. I have great concerns. Individually the people that serve on there
isn't so much a problem. It's some of the statements that were made
and that were put in the paper as far as the level of citizenship and
ownership of the beaches that certain people have over the rights of
other people.
And it was very, very disturbing to see the community that's the
most distance from the beaches, Immokalee, singled out as having less
ownership when in all -- and the truth of the matter is, as far as the
state and the federal government goes, we're all recognized as owners
in common with the beaches.
And that particular attitude sort of sets the pace for the Coastal
Advisory Committee and its decisions. And I'd like to be able to bring
this back to have a full review of where they are in their mission and
possibly direct them sometime in the future to be able to go in a
direction as far as beach access and other issues that are important to
all our citizens of Collier County.
Also, I'd like to be able to -- I'd like to have it come back to be
able to discuss the make-up of the Coastal Advisory Committee, to be
able to make it a more congenial group of people that might expand --
be expanded to cover all of Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I also was disturbed by some of
the comments that were supposedly made by one of the CAC
members, and Mr. Pennington is here, and he can probably address
those comments and either expound upon them or retract them. After
all, it wasn't made to the Board of Commissioners, it was an article in
the paper.
So why don't we get the feelings and statements directly from the
horse's mouth.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You know, this is not an item to
cross-examine members of the public who haven't registered to speak
on this issue.
Page 28
February 22, 2005
Has he registered to speak on this issue?
MS. FILSON: I have Mr. Pennington and Mr. Sorey registered to
speak.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: On this issue?
MS. FILSON: This issue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then in that case it is an appropriate
time. Let's have the public speakers.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Pennington. He will be followed by John
Sorey.
MR. PENNINGTON: The horse approaches.
Good morning, Chairman Coyle, Commissioners. Ron
Pennington, chairman of the Collier County Coastal Advisory
Committee.
Collier County beaches. The beaches of Collier County extend
from Lee County 31 and a quarter mile to Caxambas Pass and come
under the control of several jurisdictions. These jurisdictions are
Delnor- Wiggins State Park, which is one mile, Pelican Bay is two
miles, Rookery Bay Aquatic Reserve is seven miles.
The remaining 21 and a quarter miles are divided between the
three governmental jurisdictions; City of Marco Island has six miles,
City of Naples has nine miles, Collier County has six and a quarter
miles.
For Collier County, that is the county line to Wiggins Pass, is
three miles, Vanderbilt Beach is two and a half miles, Clam Pass
Beach is three quarters of a mile.
For the City of Naples, responsibility for its beaches is contained
in the city charter. Ownership of our beaches is defined by the mean
high water line. The beach seaward of the mean high water line is
state property under control of the board of trustees of the Internal
Improvement Trust Fund and the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection. Landward of the mean high water line is
the private property.
Page 29
February 22,2005
The county manager did an outstanding job in developing
ordinance 2001-03 which created the Coastal Advisory Committee.
The CAC is the successor to the City of Naples Beach Renourishment
and Maintenance Committee which guided the 1995/96 renourishment
of Vanderbilt and Naples Beaches.
The CAC was established in cooperation with the City of Naples
and the City of Marco Island, sharing with Collier County equal
representation in developing a comprehensive approach in maintaining
our beaches. This is one area where representatives from the county
and the two major municipalities have worked together cooperatively
with common objectives.
Suggestions that the equal representation be changed would not
be looked at favorably by the municipalities and would be motivation
to withdraw and re-establish their independent committees.
The CAC responsibilities are technical in nature, as their
assigned concerns are for the long-term preservation of our beaches.
Membership on the committee is based upon familiarity with coastal
processes, inlet dynamics, and coastal management programs,
including relevant education and experience.
Suggestions of adding public access to those responsibilities
would be a diversion, as the access issue is often political in nature
and is presently under the purview of parks and rec., which has some
other political kinds of things to deal with about parks, and which also
received category A funds for that purpose in accordance with the
board's funding policy of December 2003.
The City of Naples provides 40 public access points to its
beaches with over 1,150 parking spaces, which are predominantly
used by county residents.
The city would like more public accesses in the county, which
presently has seven accesses, with approximately 1,000 parking
spaces.
Vanderbilt parking garage will be a help, although that beach
Page 30
February 22, 2005
may become crowded with encroachment of people into the
Ritz-Carlton area.
I think also the discussions about busing to our beaches will be a
big help because pragmatically, the ability to acquire additional public
access points is slim to none. There is no beachfront undeveloped
property available.
The Vanderbilt Inn at $50 million is steep to enable parking of
approximately 100 cars. I don't believe this or future boards will
utilize eminent domain -- if I may?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have to wrap it up, Ron.
MR. PENNINGTON: Okay -- eminent domain procedures to
acquire multi million dollar beachfront residential property to be used
for parking. I suggest what we have is all we will have, even with a
population of 600,000.
Back to the CAC, we are a hard-working effective advisory
committee to the board. It is working well in serving our community.
To change its composition would be detrimental to its purpose and
would result in its ultimate demise.
I would be pleased to respond to any questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any questions? Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. PENNINGTON: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Pennington, are you willing
to expound upon the comments that supposedly you quoted in the
Naples Daily News?
MR. PENNINGTON: Yes, sir, I'd be happy to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks.
MR. PENNINGTON: Okay. Let's see. Which one? The one I
made comment about, why should we want somebody from
Immokalee to tell us how to run our beaches. I think that was one of
them.
Page 3 1
February 22, 2005
I wasn't picking on Immokalee. I was picking a point in the most
remote part of the county from the beaches. Immokalee is far east. So
it wasn't Immokalee as Immokalee, but it was a point which came to
mind when talking to the reporter, and we're all very familiar with
how sometimes you respond to reporters, and so that was it.
But the point being that those of us that are on the coast and look
at our beaches on a day-to-day basis are very familiar with the kinds
of things that we're concerned about.
The beaches are dynamic. It changes every tide, and we know
what those things are. People that are remote, unless it's someone that
has studied beaches, does not understand all that.
So my point is, those of us that are on the coast are the ones that
should be making those kinds of decisions relative to the technical
aspects of the beach.
And recognizing -- I'm saying CAC is technical. Weare not
political, nor do I think we should be.
Was there -- it seems like maybe there was another comment that
I might have made that may have been considered to be negative. At
the moment I --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're not saying that the people
-- the rest of the people that don't live on the coast are not concerned
or have interest in the beaches?
MR. PENNINGTON: Oh, no, no, no. No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's what it kind of played
out. And I -- knowing you as long as I have, I just found that
astonishing the way it was written.
MR. PENNINGTON: Well, it was not intended that way at all.
Because as I say, in Naples we've got 40 public access points, and we
expect -- as I say, they're predominantly county people.
I live across the street from two of them, and I go over and -- and
I often look at the bumper stickers and where they are from. And 80 to
90 percent are county, which is fine, and we expect that, so I'm not
Page 32
February 22, 2005
complaining about it.
But I'm saying those of us that are very familiar with the beaches
are the ones that should be making the technical determinations. I
have no concerns about anyone from anywhere coming in and using
the beaches. That's fine. Not a problem.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
Mr. Pennington, I hate to keep rehashing these issues, but you've
got to realize, this is an extremely sensitive issue throughout Collier
County, and you're partly right about it being political.
But I'll tell you what, it's also a responsibility. It's a responsibility
of every one of us to try to come up with more beach access. We
shouldn't be using terms that it's slim to none that it's going to happen.
You should go -- and we should be proactive and try to find a way to
make it happen.
When I hear something like that -- and also about the fact that,
you mentioned about the Ritz-Carlton and the encroachment on the
beaches, those are the kind of terms that do not endear this committee
to my heart. It gives me great concern.
You're an advisory committee. You're supposed to set the pace to
give us the advice that we need to be able to act in the very best
interest of everybody in Collier County.
And, you know, when I hear a statement that -- such as, they live
inland and they want a voice in everything, Pennington said. I would
point out also that people that live in the city or in close proximity to
the beach pay a lot of money to do that. The coastal residents are the
ones who are primarily concerned with what happens to their beach.
Why should somebody from Immokalee be judged, what happens to
their beach? Their beach being the coastal people.
Mr. Pennington, this is inexcusable. When you say these kind of
things, this makes us look in very bad light. The commission looks in
bad light, too. And I want to see this come back before the
Page 33
February 22, 2005
commission so that we can hash this whole thing out and have a good
understanding amongst ourselves exactly where we're going with not
only the committee itself, but with the beach access issue, which is of
primary importance to all our residents of Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that some of your statements
are correct, Commissioner Coletta, but I also think that being that we
have dealt with the press in the past, realize that sometimes there are
statements that are taken out of context. And I think that we should
give the benefit to Mr. Pennington, since he's at the podium, and
maybe he can address that.
But I believe also their charter is that -- I don't believe they're
charged with looking for additional beach access, and you can correct
me if I'm wrong on that. So I think that either we empower them or we
have another committee that looks at this.
I think the real issue is that we're going to have a citizens' outcry
for beach access to the point where this may have to come up as a
referendum, and people are willing to -- if this becomes a real
problem, I think that's when we're going to have to address that issue.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think that's excellent. I'll tell
you why. That's the reason -- one of the reasons why we should bring
it back, to discuss that also.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But -- well, as I said, just the idea
that as we incur more population in this county and more people want
to get to the beach, then I think we're going to have to be -- if people
insist on that, then they're going to have to come before us with a
referendum saying they want to put that on the ballot to tax
themselves to buy property, because as was brought up by Mr.
Pennington, that it's slim to none, and he's absolutely right.
So Mr. Pennington, I'll let you finish up.
MR. PENNINGTON: Thank you. And as I said, pragmatically,
and I also said, the people in the City of Naples would love to have
Page 34
February 22, 2005
more beach accesses in the county to share the wealth.
And generally, most days of the week, one can find places to go
to the beach, and it's not that the beaches are crowded, it's there's no
place to park. Parking is our big bugaboo in the city and in the county.
Most of our city accesses have about 20 or so parking spaces for each
of those. And in the city, practically every avenue has an access, and
that's fine.
But on a holiday, if we take a Memorial Day, a 4th of July, boy,
they get filled up in a hurry. And, you know, you've got people
looking for any place they can park and get out.
And I live in a condo area. And sometimes we have people
parking up in the condo parking lot and going across to the beach.
We've got tow away signs, but it still happens. They're looking for a
place to park to get there.
We would like to have more. But as I said, pragmatically, in
looking at this, where can we get them?
Now, and -- who has responsibility within county staff or
advisory boards for this? You all have assigned that already to parks
and rec., and I think appropriately so, because it is a parks kind of
thing.
We're a technical group. Our concern is the care and feeding of
the beach. And please don't get us involved in the political kinds of
things. Because as I say, that is something that takes us away from
what we're doing.
So we have a group, and I have made a special point not to
intrude into the parks and rec. area. If you all remember a year and a
half ago, we had a big go-round about all that, and I'm sure
Commissioner Henning remembers all that quite well. He was
chairman at the time.
And I've made it a point, don't intrude into the parks and rec.'s
responsibilities. And -- because we are technical, and we have a group
of people -- on our board right now, we have two city council
Page 35
February 22, 2005
members, we have an attorney, we have other professional people, and
we're all very much engrossed in what we're doing. We work -- all of
us work hard.
I put in more time on this than I would some paying jobs that
might be around. The mayor asked me if I wanted to work three half
days a week, and I said no. I'm doing plenty as a volunteer.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioners, I'd like to remind you,
this is not the time to solve the problem. It's only the time to decide
whether or not you want to bring it back to solve the problem.
I have two other commissioners who wish to speak, and then I'd
like to try to get a sense of -- we have one more public speaker.
MS. FILSON: We have two more.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Two more public speakers. Comm --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then I'll go very, very quickly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll just say I have to totally
agree with you as far as access goes, and I think that possibly you
might have a liaison with the parks and recs. department to discuss not
only access, and wholeheartedly discuss it with them and maybe help
one another along that line, but also with the parking.
I know our parks and rec. department has been working
diligently to try and find areas to park, and even other ways such as
transportation to and from the beach, and it might be great to have a
liaison.
My last comment was, with the -- you have -- you've broken up
into three, kind of, districts. You have the Marco district, the Naples
district, and then the county district, and that county district can house
one person from each of the districts that aren't represented in those
two, and they would also have a say in that, even whether they're on
the beach or not, or even close to it, you know. So that's my
suggestion. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
Page 36
February 22, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: As we said, they're not charged with
the beach access, so I'm not sure how you're going to rectify that
problem unless we change the ordinance.
But I can tell you that parking is the biggest issue. I continually
get e-mails of -- where -- people wanting to get into the state park,
Delnor- Wiggins state. And of course, they have a load carrying
capacity, they shut the gates.
And then what happens is, I have a problem whereby people
become parked on the road, do not continue to move. They are parked
on a bridge where there's a two-lane yellow line, and people stay there
so nobody can get down to the beach or get out of that area because
there's -- the roads are blocked up and you can't pass or get around the
traffic because of the double yellow line going over the bridge. So it's
a real problem.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think, based upon what I'm hearing, it's
a fair certainly that this board is going to ask this to be brought back
for a full public hearing.
Do the remaining public speakers wish to b heard at this point in
time, or would you prefer to be heard at the time when this is brought
back for a public hearing?
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mr. Sorey.
MR. SOREY: Like to make a brief comment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, okay.
MR. PENNINGTON: I would make a quick comment also. I
have discussed this in depth with Mayor Barnett, and my comments
totally reflect his position and his concerns, so I just did want you to
be aware of that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MR. PENNINGTON: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: And Mr. Sorey will be followed by Bill Moss.
MR. SOREY: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
John Sorey, City of Naples, and I'll be brief.
Page 37
February 22, 2005
I think Chainnan Pennington did a great job of summarizing the
detail. I just want to address one issue in support of Chainnan
Pennington.
He runs a great meeting. And I know one of the issues that
started this was one of our members who elected to resign. And I can
assure you that Chainnan Pennington cuts me off, cuts anyone else off
if we stray from the topic.
This is a technical committee. Weare not responsible for beach
access, and I appreciate Commissioner Halas' comments about the
press. We know how that always goes.
But we're dedicated to serving the entire county, but doing it
from a technical standpoint, looking at beaches and inlets. And I
would strongly suggest to you that you not affect the composition of
the committee because I think it's appropriately set up based on the
issues. And also I would hope that you would continue to let parks and
recs. address the beach access issue and keep that out of this
committee so that we can concentrate on the issue of beaches in inlets.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Sorey.
MS. FILSON: And your final speaker, Bill Moss.
MR. MOSS: Good morning, Commissioners, Bill Moss, City
Manager of Marco Island, and I will defer comments until you bring
this up again on the agenda, except to say that we don't think at this
point that the issue actually is a composition of the Coastal Advisory
Committee.
We did work along with your staff and with the board and with
the City of Naples to try to bring in a unified committee and help to
develop the ordinance that you have adopted in 2001.
We think that the issue at this point maybe is more related to the
goals and missions of the committee and expectations of the
committee by the Board of County Commissioners.
And I'll make further comments in writing to you, and I'll be with
Page 38
--->~'
February 22, 2005
you and help you all we can because we think it's a good group with
the right direction. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Moss.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If we're going to bring this back,
I would imagine we'd need to give certain direction. And the things
that I would like to see -- I know there is some historical information
on the make-up of the committee working with the cities in Collier
County .
I also think that we need to take a look at the make-up of the
committee because, as stated, it's supposed to be technical people on
this committee. For one, I don't know why -- what technical ability a
lawyer has on beach renourishment. Those are the things that we need
to discuss, historical information, and what kind of changes we need
to make in the future.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I need to ask the commissioners
something here. Is this a problem of dissatisfaction with the
recommendations that have come from the Coastal Advisory
Commission, or is this a concern that beach access is not getting the
appropriate attention?
If the beach access issue is the one you want to concentrate on,
then, perhaps, we should be talking about a beach access workshop
and/or a beach access advisory committee rather than talking about the
make-up of the Coastal Advisory Committee. So I need to get a clear
understanding from you what your concern is.
Now, I know that it came up because some commissioners are
unhappy that one member of the board resigned because he felt that he
wasn't being listened to. The counterargument to that is, he wasn't
being listened to because he was talking about things that are not the
charge of the committee.
So if that is true, and I'm not intending to debate that at this
moment in time, but if your concern is beach access, would it not be
Page 39
February 22,2005
better to focus our efforts on a beach access committee or workship
rather than trying to fiddle with the Coastal Advisory Committee?
So Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. At no point during my
discussion did I bring up the resignation of Ginsberg (phonetic). I
consider that maybe the catalyst that brought this all up. But, I mean,
the man acted on his own accord, and that's just one of the normal
transitions we go through with all these boards when people resign.
N ever brought it up as a fact of tremendous certain. I do like to see an
advocate on there for beach access, but I mean, it was his choice to
resign, and what are you going to do about that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My concern is the insensitivity at
what's taking place. And let's be honest about it. These two items, the
beaches themselves and the beach access are linked. They're
interlinked in a way that can never be separated. If you don't maintain
good beaches, you can't have access. And so access and the beaches
and how they're maintained and the public's interest in them are just
one and the same subj ect.
I think we need to look at it from several different directions and
maybe during the discussion when we have it, we can be looking at a
separate committee to do that as we explore what the Coastal
Advisory Committee is actually doing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Anyone else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioners, what would you
like to do?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would like to see it brought
back.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And what is it we want to bring
back?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The make-up of the Coastal
Page 40
February 22, 2005
Advisory Committee and their mission, and also the -- what other
possibilities are available to us to explore the options of beach access.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, we first have to discuss, don't
we, where beach access actually plays a role within this committee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If it doesn't play any role here, then
we don't -- you know, we don't need to discuss composition.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I maintain that it does play
a role.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Maybe not a direct role, but it
does playa role.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- the parks and rec. advisory
board is charged with beach access, like it was stated, and I hope that
the CAC can stay away from that in the future. But I'll second the
concern of the make-up of the CAC and -- but I also think that we
need some historical information of why the committee is three, three,
and three. I think that's very important in our discussion, so I'll second
that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta and
Commissioner Henning want to talk about the make-up of the Coastal
Advisory Committee and beach access, as I understand it; is that
correct, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. What is it you'd like to talk about?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the -- I think it's -- if
Commissioner Coletta wants to speak about access, that's a separate
committee. It's parks and rec.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then you didn't second his motion then,
right?
Page 41
February 22, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He didn't make a motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He suggested that we do that, yes, and
you said you seconded that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second his suggestion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Let's go back to this. I
guess the -- this commission doesn't want to discuss beach access as
part of the make-up of the Coastal Advisory Committee. At least that's
the feeling I'm getting from the discussion that's taking place. But
they'd like to discuss the make-up of it. That's a little on the shallow
side, but I still think that there's something we need to do to be able to
understand where we're going with this.
So I'll go ahead and restate my suggestion as a motion that says
just that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And what you're suggesting is we
have a meeting to discuss --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We have an agenda item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Agenda item to discuss the make-up of
the CAC?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that what you're saying?
Commissioner Henning, is that what you want?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It's a second by Commissioner
Henning.
Any discussion by the Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I didn't understand the same
thing as Commissioner Coletta. I understood that the make-up, which
we could -- we could address at some time has nothing to do with
beach access, and I thought that there was more concern going toward
the beach access issue, and I thought that's what we were supposed to
be bringing back, not the make-up of this committee.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what I thought.
Page 42
February 22, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because they're two separate issues
altogether, so -- and I understood Commissioner Coletta, when he first
began, saying his concern was beach access.
So what is your concern really?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, my concern ultimately is
beach access, but I do think that the Coastal Advisory Committee and
the attitude that they take has a direct impact on how we are able to
attain beach access. I see a link. And if we can't go directly to the
beach access question or issue, then let's deal with the make-up of the
committee and how it's put together, and does it truly represent the
interest of the residents of Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I -- you know, my feeling is that
you need to define who is going to do what in very, very clear terms.
And if beach access is the concern, we need to define
responsibilities for that and find a way to get, perhaps, a faster
progress on that before we start fiddling around with a committee that
we admitted doesn't have anything to do with beach access.
So there's a motion on the table. I'm going to call the motion. If
the motion fails, I will make a motion that we have a workshop on
beach access itself to see if we can't solve that issue first, but --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, can I just bring something to your
attention real quick?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. MUDD: There is a -- there is a publicly announced
workshop tomorrow at the Golden Gate Community Center with the
parks and recreation board, and the workshop is for beach access, and
it's at six p.m. tomorrow, okay. I want to make sure that you know
that, okay, on that particular item.
And I also want to make sure that you know that the Coastal
Advisory Committee four-year report comes in front of the Board of
County Commissioners on the 22nd of March as a part of about five
boards. There's about 10, and I'll announce that later on today which
Page 43
.-----
February 22, 2005
ones are coming on the 8th and which ones are coming on the 22nd.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I need to get to this motion. But my
intent would be, if the motion fails, I would like to see a workshop
where the parks and recreation board would give us a report in public
and gather public comments about their conclusions and their
proposed solutions and a budget to get us where we want to be on
beach accesses.
But we have a motion on the table.
Commissioner Halas, you want to talk before the motion -- the
vote is taken?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All I want to say is that I don't think
that we have enough money budgeted to acquire additional beach
access at this point in time where we -- where Collier County stays. So
I think it's going to have to be something bigger than just charging the
parks and rec. with locating beach access at this point in time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I clearly specified that the -- that I would
ask in that workshop that they would provide us with a budget that
would solve the beach access problem, so I'm going to call the motion
now.
And all in favor of Commissioner Coletta's motion, please signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, signify by like sign.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
So the motion fails on a vote of three against; Commissioner
Fiala, Commissioner Coyle, and Commissioner Halas voting against.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. It was directed
towards the last motion. I just was going to make a comment that if it
Page 44
February 22, 2005
passed, there's no reason why we still couldn't have a beach access
workshop.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I just think, you know, one should come
before the other, but -- so I will-- I will make the motion that we have
a regularly scheduled item or a workshop, County Manager -- and I'd
leave it up to you -- so that we can be briefed upon -- on the objectives
of the beach access program and the potential sources of funding to
get us there.
And is there a second for that motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala seconds the
motion. Is there a discussion?
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just a comment. Can that
direction also be to look at a referendum?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, sources of funding would cover
that, I'm sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that would also include like
parking and shuttling and so forth?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Everything, all the alternatives and how
we get there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And maybe even creating some kind
of new committee just focussing on that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Perhaps.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other thing you've got to take
into consideration, you can bus people down there, but if you don't
have facilities for them, that makes it pretty difficult. So you've got to
look in also the other part of it, getting people there, but you have to
provide conveniences for them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I would hope that any solutions
parks and recs. presents to us will include solutions, right?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Page 45
February 22,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Solutions and financing sources.
Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And we have a motion on the floor
by Commissioner Coyle, a second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please specify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, indicate by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2005-98: APPOINTING ERNEST F. BRETZMANN
TO THE GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY
COMMITTEE - A DOEIED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 9C, which is
appointment of member to the Golden Gate Community Center
Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve Ernest
Bretzmann.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
Page 46
February 22, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2005-99: RE-APPOINTING SHARON D. KING
AND VICTOR L. BRITTAIN TO THE BA YSHORE
BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE-
ADOEIED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner that brings us to 9D. It's
appointment of members to the Bayshore Beautification MSTU
Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to approve Sharon
King and Victor Brittain.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Fiala to approve the recommendations of the
committee.
Is there a second?
I will second the appointment.
And all in favor, please signify -- do you have a speaker?
MS. FILSON: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. All in favor, please specify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 47
February 22, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(N 0 response.)
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2005-10: DECLARING A VACANCY ON THE
IMMOKALEE ENTERPRISE ZONE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY -
.AI1OEIED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 9E. It's a
recommendation to declare a vacancy on the Immokalee Enterprise
Zone Development Agency.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So move.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta wishes to accept
the recommendations of the committee to declare the vacancy on the
Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency. It's seconded by
Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It carries unanimously.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, I'd request that we take a 10-minute
Page 48
..---
February 22, 2005
break before our 10:30 time certain.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Mudd.
We are adjourned for 10 minutes.
(A brief recess was had.)
Item #10D
RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO PREPARE
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 92-60
RELATING TO TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAXES, A
AMENDED, TO EXPAND THE USE OF CATEGORY C-2 USES
TO INCLUDE MUNICIPAL OWNED MUSEUMS; TO CHANGE
THE PERCENTAGES OF C-1 & C-2 USES AND TO ENABLE
THE USE OF SURPLUS TOURIST TAX FUNDS FOR
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're back in session.
MR. MUDD: You have a hot mike, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager, you're going to lOA, if
I remember correctly?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, no, it's 10D.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, that's right.
MR. MUDD: It's a recommendation to authorize staff to prepare
an ordinance amending ordinance number 92-60 relating to tourist
development taxes as amended, to expand the use of category C-2
uses to include municipal owned museums, to change the percentages
of C-1 and C-2 uses and to enable the use of surplus tourist tax funds
for additional promotion.
And Mr. Jack Wert, your director of tourism, will present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wert?
MR. WERT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Jack
Page 49
",~~-~.~..."...., - ."._,~._,~~.~-,..__."._.._--,..~-~..,.,~.~".-
February 22, 2005
Wert, tourism director, for the record.
We're going to discuss a couple of different changes to the tourist
tax ordinance. And first of all will be some changes to the museum
category C, and secondly, a proposal to invest some excess tourist
development tax funds for additional \advertising, public relations, and
promotion.
Specifically in the category C section, we are suggesting -- and
this is based on the discussion that we had back in December at our
joint workshop between the county commission and the TDC -- to
change the wording in the C-I, which is the county -owned museums,
to say now, county owned or operated, which would then cover the
operation of the Naples Depot.
The second is to reallocate some funds between category C- 2 and
C-I specifically for the operation of the Naples Depot. And if -- we
are recommending adding 3 percent from the category C-2 category to
C-I, bringing that percentage up to 22 percent of the first two cents of
the tourist tax. And that would be a like reduction of 3 percent in the
C-2 category, the non-county-owned museums.
And just a caveat there, making that move, we still will have
sufficient funds in C-2 to fund all of the programs that are currently
funded under C-2.
I'd like to then move on to the second part of the presentation,
which is the investing of excess funds. And just a little bit of an
outline here. We really need to renourish the markets and the places
that we're placing our advertising and promotion the same way we
renourish our beaches. Our beaches are beautiful. In fact, we all know
that they're award-winning, but they really can't market themselves.
We must promote them.
And, in fact, the travel channel that came here and voted Naples
Beach as the best over -- all-round beach in the United States, actually
it was the best all-round beach community in the United States, we
brought them here. We -- through our public relations folks, weA
Page 50
February 22, 2005
showed them around town, showed them the things that they needed
to know so that they did, in fact, come up with the right choice of
Naples being the number one beach community in the country. And it
was a lot more than beaches. It was all of the amenities that we offer
visitors to our area.
If we can see added promotion in the summer months
specifically, we can increase our beach funds for future years, and we
also increase visitor spending, which is so important to our entire
community, all of the businesses that are affected by visitors coming
here and spending money.
We are, in fact, every year, overall, losing new and repeat
visitors, so we have to keep finding new visitors to come here to
replace them, and they're going to other sun destinations, because
they're competing, and they're out there advertising and promoting for
exactly the same visitors that we are.
And potential visitors, as we go and do research with people in
markets where we aren't advertising, they like what we show them in
terms of our branding and our advertising campaign, but because they
haven't seen it, they can't react favorably. If they did, we think that we
can certainly attract them here.
In 2005 we're going to face several factors that are going to make
it difficult to have the kind of season that we had last year. Our
improved economy in the U.S. is giving people many more dollars to
spend for vacationing and many more choices to spend those dollars,
and there are many more destinations out there with big promotion
budgets that are buying for those very same vacation dollars.
Now, the weak U.S. dollar that we have against the euro and the
British pound makes Florida and, really, the U. S. a great bargain for
international visitors, and we want to get as many of them as we
possibly can. And certainly the extraordinary weather conditions that
we had last summer, four hurricanes, are certainly going to make July
through September this year, and really future years, of real concern.
Page 51
--_.._-"-,,-~~.
---~._.,..~._-,-_.-._.....__.<_.
February 22, 2005
And this is the kind of stuff that we're concerned about. This ad
just ran two weeks ago in a meetings publication. And it says,
attention event planners, this is what Florida looked like September of
last year. And the copy is, four hurricanes slammed Florida disrupting
travel and canceling hundreds of airline flights, meeting attendees,
desert coastal hotels throughout the region.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Many destinations are going to
be going after our meeting attendees that we've enjoyed over the last
few years. We want to make sure that we get them back.
Now, our campaign is April to September. We promote primarily
inside Florida. That's what our budget allows us to do. We had the best
summer ever, the best off-season we have ever had in this destination.
We were up 15 percent overall for the calendar year. And if you take
out the effects of August and September where we had displaced
persons from other regions that were forced to come here, you take all
of that out, we still are up 12 percent over 2003.
Our visitation is up 10 percent, many more people here, and they
spent 15 percent more money here in 2004 than they did the previous
year.
But our competition really does outspend us in every category.
We've seen their chart before, and I'm not going to dwell on it, but just
graphically it shows that we are investing considerably less per
lodging unit than the rest of our beach destination competition.
And I will tell you that each and every one of these destinations
has applied for and is getting additional dollars to put toward
marketing and advertising this summer because they know the
importance of saving our business. They know they need to be out
there advertising more than they ever have before. So these are all
additional dollars.
And even our state tourism organization, Visit Florida, has
pledged $4.75 million to be spent between this month and June just to
help us with the meetings market and helping to bring people back to
Page 52
February 22, 2005
Florida despite the misinformation out there that Florida is pretty well
destroyed from last year's hurricanes.
I did a quick analysis of excess revenue that we might have had
in past years. And I want you to know that some years you're right on
and some years you aren't. In 2003, that was actually -- I didn't have
anything to do with that forecast. That was before we came here and
started this department.
But 2003, we were actually behind our forecast, so there wasn't a
surplus that year. But in 2004, we had a sizable surplus, and that is
revenue that comes in in the tourist tax above and beyond what is
forecast for the year. And so we saw a very nice surplus there.
And in 2005, we see that same thing happening. Already, four
months into the year, October through January, we're seeing $216,000
excess over what we proj ected.
Now, last year you were kind enough to give the tourism
department some additional funds out of our reserves to invest in a
variety of different things, primarily in new advertising. And we took
that advertising dollars and we put them into places and media that we
had not been able to do before. Miami and Ft. Lauderdale and Palm
Beach area, we did television. Never been able to do that before.
And we got in some upscale publications, both corporate and
family, and there's some very good titles there that we need to be in
and our message needs to be there, and we supported all of it with
newspapers, the Sunday travel section newspapers, to affect people
moving here from the east coast of Florida.
Here's what we were able to do with that money. Just from
attracting new visitors, people that had not been here before that were
attracted by our advertising, and we asked them this in our research.
We brought them -- we talked to them in their hotels. We find out
what brings them here, and how much money they spend.
What we found was that for every dollar we invested in that
advertising that you allowed us to do last year, we were able to return
Page 53
-~'"......-
February 22, 2005
$19 in spending for every dollar that -- that we invested. So $5.7
million in new visitor spending. Those are new people that had not
been here before.
It also brought us additional sales tax revenue, $312,000 in
additional TDC tax revenue as well. This does not count repeat
visitors. And that 60 percent of what we get every year are repeat
visitors. So this is just new. These are people that were attracted
specifically by that ad campaign.
So our proposal is to enhance the promotion of our beautiful
beaches during the critical 2005 off-season, primarily April through
September. We'd like to invest the excess tourist tax funds received
the first half of the year, from October to March 31 st. That will be
actual dollars that we will already have -- already have brought in and
will be able to see what our excess revenue is.
By spending and investing those dollars wisely, we can produce
additional tourist tax revenue for all of our funds, the beach
renourishment promotion and the museums in the second half of the
year.
It will also enable us to go into some new markets where we
aren't able to advertise now, the Midwest, the northeast, and in the
international market.
And finally, it will enable us to participate in a co-op basis with
Visit Florida in that $4.75 million that they now have from the
governor to promote the state this summer.
The overall investment that we see, we think we may have as
much as $700,000 in additional funds above and beyond what we have
projected this year as of March 31 st. And by investing that, we're
doing all this on these assumptions. First of all, that all the FY -'05
beach and inlet projects are fully funded.
That assumes that the Vanderbilt parking garage is financed and
that we're also assuming that most of the major beach renourishment
money that is currently in the '05 budget will actually be spent in '06.
Page 54
._-
February 22, 2005
So we have more than enough money to pay for all the beach and inlet
projects that we have on the books for the 2005 fiscal year.
And also all of the mandates that are in that beach policy that you
wrestled with and finally passed in December of '03, all of those
mandates are fulfilled under this proposal, and we will still have a
surplus to invest in additional advertising.
This is what we see as a return on investment for that kind of
investment. Over $13 million in new spending. Again, using that $19
for every dollar we invest in advertising we can see new expenditures
from new visitors coming to the area.
The overall benefits are that all of our tax categories in the TDC
tax will receive increased revenue the second half of the year. The
county benefits because they see more sales and gasoline taxes. We
put our excess idle tourism funds to work. Remember those funds are
not earning us any interest. That interest goes to the general fund.
So we need to find a way to get a return on those funds. We think
that this is a way to put those funds to work.
The real important thing is nearly every Collier County business
receives increased visitor expenditures from new people coming to our
area and spending money this summer. It levels off that traditional
summer slump that we've experienced here for so many years, and it
really helps us with year-round employment, keeping our people
throughout Collier County employed in the various aspects of the
tourism industry.
It brings new revenue and new spending from new markets that
we haven't had before, and it protects that critical July through
September time frame when we really need the business. That's when
we promote, that's when all of our hotels and businesses in the
community really need the additional help.
How would we spend that money? Primarily in television in both
Chicago and New York markets, spot television that we've never been
able to do before, and get into that Visit Florida co-op, specifically
Page 55
February 22, 2005
with some radio, newspaper, and in the meetings market, getting into
some meeting planner publications that we currently cannot afford to
be in and desperately need to be in.
Some additional online e-blasts and additional ways to pay for
every click that -- when somebody comes to our website. Those are
great investments.
Some more publications in the nature, golf, and fishing area,
those niche markets th,at are so important to us.
International representation, being able to find a way for
someone overseas to answer the phone as Naples/Marco
Island/Everglades and help them with information specifically about
our area, and some additional very needed public relations efforts to
get our message across.
So overall our recommendation is, first of all, to approve the
Tourist Development Council recommendation of January 24th to
invest these excess tourist funds in additional off-season advertising;
secondly, to approve the recommendation to reallocate the 3 percent to
the C-l category to cover Naples Depot; and third, to direct staff to
advertise and prepare the ordinance that would cover these very
needed changes.
Commissioner -- Commissioners, we really do need your support
on this to keep all our Collier County residents employed year-round,
a way to invest our idle tourism funds, to grow the beach and other
tourist tax categories, and finally and most importantly, to improve
our chances for another great season this summer. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Mr. Wert.
We have nine public speakers so far.
Commissioner Halas, you want to speak now or would you rather
hold your remarks?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll hold my remarks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And since we have nine, we'd ask
that you limit your comments to three minutes each, please.
Page 56
February 22, 2005
Would you call the first speaker.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is John Sorey. He will be
followed by Connie Ashbrook (sic).
MR. SOREY: Good morning, again, Commissioners. For the
record, John Sorey, City of Naples. And I agree with Mr. Wert's
premise that we're not spending enough money on advertising.
What I disagree with is the proposal that's presented to you is to
permanently change this ordinance, which requires four votes. But
once that's done in the future, then the commission could take dollars
from other categories and spend them without a supermajority.
Last year you recall we had a presentation about an advertising
program that was going to be a one-time approach. Now this year we
have originally presented to the CAC and TDC what was going to be a
one-time approach, and then at our last CAC meeting, Mr. Wert
changed his position and said, no, that this would be something if
there was excess above the proj ections, that he would want to be able
to spend those.
So I would' argue that we don't need to take money from the
beaches, and he's correct in what he presented to you that -- the fact
that with the refinance -- with financing the parking garage, which you
could say, well, that's shift in money from one pocket to the other, we
do meet all of our commitments.
But if you strip that out and look at it, we're not meeting our
reserves that you had approved and we're not providing the funds that
we need.
So I would encourage you to A, support additional advertising,
but let's look at it from other funds; number two, that you not change
this ordinance and do not reduce any of the dollars that are dedicated
to the beaches, because based on this last renourishment -- and we're
going through right now at CAC the 10-year projections and that sort
of thing.
But based on what we saw from the state this last year, the
Page 57
February 22, 2005
requirements for a reef, the requirement for much more monitoring
than we've had in the past, I would argue that our beach
renourishment's going to continue to be more complex and more
costly, and we need all the dollars that we can generate for
maintenance of beaches. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Mr. Sorey.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Connie Alsbrook. She'll be
followed by Ron Pennington.
MS. ALSBROOK: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Connie Alsbrook. I'm here to speak to you today on behalf of the
Naples Botanical Garden.
I am opposed to this ordinance change as well, specifically as it
affects the nonprofit museums in category C.
Many cities fund their county museums as line items out of the
general operating fund. If commissioners have decided to use TDC
funds to fund the county museums, then county museums should
compete on a level playing field with all the museums in the county,
from one pot of money, that being the category C funds.
In many national surveys, successful nonprofit museums get 20
to 22 percent of their support from local government.
Currently there are 12 museums in Collier County. The
developing children's museum and the depot will make 14 according
to current invest -- information available. If funds for four county
museums are increased to 22 percent of available category C funds, it
will leave only 4 percent of available funds, or approximately
$250,000, for 10 other museums in Collier County.
The Naples Botanical Garden opposes this change, and I urge
you to approve the TDC's recommendation to make one category for
C funds and have all museums compete based on merit and that they
demonstrate both earned and unearned income.
And now I'm going to take off my hat as a Naples Botanical
board member and speak to you as a 20-year resident of Collier
Page 58
February 22, 2005
County. I have lived here for 21 years, and I have raised a family, and
I have enjoyed all the museums in this county. I think that they're very
important.
And as a citizen of this county, I would be willing to increase my
tax base a small amount to support a county museum, our county
museums. But I do not see taking away money from our nonprofit
museums, because we are trying very hard to provide a service to this
county and also to attract visitors and give them something to do.
So I urge you to not support this ordinance change. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Ron Pennington. He will be
followed by Bob Woolery.
MR. PENNINGTON: I planned on five minutes, so I'll have to
talk fast. Ron Pennington, again.
Good morning, again, Commissioners. At our last CAC meeting
February the 10th, Mr. Wert presented his proposal which would
result in diversion of category A tourist tax funds. The CAC voted
unanimously to deny the staff recommendation to approve the
proposed diversion.
The CAC then voted unanimously to send a letter formally
stating the CAC recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners, and I believe you all have received that letter and it is
also in your agenda packets.
First, there is no surplus, and Mr. Wert's now calling it excess
instead of surplus, but there is no -- neither of category A funds.
At this point beach-related requirements have necessitated -- are
going through over two-thirds of the required 1.5 million emergency
reserve fund.
From the CAC 1 O-year projection budget workshop of last
Friday, the CAC is in concurrence with staffs recommendation, which
Mr. Wert mentioned, to finance the Vanderbilt Beach parking garage.
If approved by the Board of County Commissioners, this will alleviate
Page 59
February 22, 2005
the immense funding problem we are facing; however, it will still
leave us with the least amount of reserve funds for this year compared
with the other years in the 10-year period.
There are no surplus or excess category A funds. To suggest that
receipts over projections at midyear are surplus with recognition there
will be a downturn by the end of the year, is a management risk that
should not be taken.
The proposed change in the tourist tax ordinance for category A
is a matter of grave concern. Since inception in 1992, funds for
maintenance of our beaches have been considered sacrosanct because
that was the entire basis for initiating a tourist tax.
The change as proposed is alarming. It would limit category A
funds to a maximum of no more than that approved by the Board of
County Commissioners by October 1st of each year. This would
prohibit any increase by budget amendment for the entire year,
regardless of the urgent -- of need without first, again, amending the
ordinance.
Changing the tourist development plan of the ordinance for
category A requires a supermajority vote is a precedent, which should
not be established.
There are those suggesting a change in the ratios of categories A
and B to improve our tourism expenditures compared to other
counties. There's a simple solution to all this which was suggested by
Commissioner Fiala some months ago and one used by most of the
other coastal counties; add a four cent. This can be done by a simple
majority vote by the commission and would produce over $3 million
per year which could all be used to promote tourism.
This would also enable a change in the current category Band C
amounts which could be used to alleviate the museum concerns. There
are ways to meet the needs without diverting those funds from our
necessary beach programs. I thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good timing. Thank you.
Page 60
February 22, 2005
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Bob Woolery. He will be
followed by Franklin Starks.
MR. STARKS: Pardon my voice. Maybe it's the red tide. I was
up north. We'd better watch that, too.
But I'm here -- I'm Franklin Starks. Bob Woolery is my -- we're
both of Gulf Shore Property Owners' Association, which, incidentally,
in 1986, the Gulf Shore Property Owners was -- Association was
started to promote renourishment of the beaches, and Scott Wadsworth
and many other names I could mention, prominent citizens, furthered
this effort and did a lot for Naples, and we don't want to see it torn
down by -- in this rush to use it for something else.
I could say, not -- that all of our -- our association is composed of
about 35 condominium buildings with over 1,200 apartment owners
strongly supporting the beach and keeping it. That's why they're here.
And that's a vital asset to this -- to this community.
So I -- on behalf of our association, we support everything that
Ron Pennington has said. We might add to that that we would -- we
would -- being interested so much in the beach, we would appreciate
maybe taking some of the money -- I would take it from the
advertising and create, if we could, additional beach so that we could
relieve some of the pressure on Lowdermilk Park.
It's too bad it wasn't done. I've been here since 1948. I wasn't any
better than the rest of you. I didn't do anything to help bring that
about. I'm a lot older than most of you, too.
So anyway at this point, we would -- we would rather, seeing
something constructive like that done, if we could acquire additional
beachfront doing the garage back -- to help the beach access to it. That
comes within our -- we approve that and we support that and -- but we
hate to see -- the beach, as we always understood it, was passed by the
voters for this effort, and we don't want to see it through, by hook or
by crook, funneled away into something else.
I think it's a vital interest that Naples retain these beaches and
Page 61
February 22, 2005
they be kept up, and we think the way it's being done, the tax method,
has worked very well. But I can see -- I don't want to see, at least I
think our people don't want to see, that a group come along and set a
budget of so much for it.
Let's keep the money that's coming in all in it. It's not to set a
budget and then spend over and above the excess that comes in on the
taxes, dilute it for other purposes, such as advertising.
I, myself, am probably not in the -- I feel that Naples is well
known. They have been attracting people for years and years, and it's
grown. We don't want Naples -- do we want Naples to be New York
City? I don't think we can be all things to all people.
Now, let's keep Naples the nice place it is. That's what I strive to
do and my group up there, with the help of city council, we reduce
building heights. We've promoted that -- use the space under the
building for parking. We're trying to limit the density because we all
know it's -- Lord, it's taking two hours now to get to Ft. Myers airport
at this time --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We don't want to get into traffic right
now, Franklin.
MR. STARKS: What's that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We don't want to get into traffic.
MR. STARKS: All right. Thank you. Well, let's do this. I implore
you on behalf of my membership of the 35 apartment buildings from
Doctors Pass down to the Beach Club and the 1,200 apartment
owners, all support this wholeheartedly . We realize the importance of
the beach, and please hear us, and I hope you'll give us as much
consideration as you can. I know you've got a difficult job. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Starks. And
I'm not sure that you're older than most us here. Commissioner Halas
had a birthday today. I think he's probably older than you are now.
MR. STARKS: How old is he?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Eighty-seven, but he looks good for
Page 62
February 22, 2005
87.
MR. STARKS: I'm 81. I'm 81. I swim in the Gulf every day.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Starks.
MR. STARKS: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Is -- Mr. Bob Woolery, are you going to speak,
sir?
MR. WOOLERY: No, I'm not going to speak. I'm the same
organization. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Okay. The next speaker will be Mike Watkins. He
will be followed by Clive Walcott.
MR. WATKINS: Good morning. I'm Mike Watkins. I'm at the
Naples Beach Hotel and Golf Club. I was born here in 1953, so you
have me by a few years, but thank you very much for having me here.
When the bed tax was first passed, it was 60/40. The beaches had
60 percent and the tourism promotion had 40 percent. So it was 60,
and 40 percent for tourism promotion.
So it was -- there was no museums in the bed tax at that time, so
-- and we proposed it, and we were behind it, and there were some of
us who were in opposition to it. And at that -- after it passed the first
time, we were -- we opposed it and took it to Tallahassee, or to Tampa
and opposed it, and we were successful in fighting it, came back. And
then on the second time through, we supported it and it passed again
as a two-cent bed tax, and it was 60/40 again, and we -- we were in
support of it, and it was successful.
So it was 60 percent for the promotion -- or for the beaches, and
40 percent for tourism promotion. And those were the only two
categories in the -- in the bed tax at that time, so that was the extent of
it. So we thought it was pretty good at that time.
And then in subsequent years, the county commission has added
the museums, and other things have come into the program as a result.
So we think the 60/40 is a good idea, so if you like that, we can go
back to that. So thank you very much.
Page 63
February 22, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Michael.
MS. FILSON: Clive Walcott. He will be followed by Clark Hill.
MR. WALCOTT: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Clive Walcott. I'm the president for the Collier County Hotel and
Lodging Association, which represents about 17,000 employees in
Collier County, the largest industry in Collier County . We have about
87 hotels right now in Collier County.
I hear a lot of people come up and speak to you very passionately
about the beach and the museums. The bottom line is, if we do not
have tourists coming to Collier County, the beach and the museums
are not going to get funded to the tune that they should get funded to,
simply because if the tourists are not coming here to spend money in
the hotels and in the restaurants and at the gas stations and in the retail
stores, every museum is going to have their fundings cut. The beach
renourishment people are going to have their fundings cut.
So, you know, we in the hotel business are here passionately
supporting Jack in what he's trying to do. We have a summer coming
up where if you speak to -- and I'm sure Ed Staros from the
Ritz-Carlton will be up here and Clark Hill from the Hilton will be up
here to tell you that as of right now, we have nothing on the books for
July, August, and September.
When I say nothing, I mean no group business, no convention
business, no leisure business, because people are deathly afraid of
spending their dollars to come to Florida in the summer not knowing
what is going to happen.
I brought an article in from the USA Today from yesterday.
Right on the front page of the USA Today, cloud remains over Florida
months after hurricane. It doesn't say Pensacola, it doesn't say
Daytona Beach. It says Florida.
So someone's sitting in the Midwest planning a vacation and they
see this, there's no way that they're going to spend their dollars to
come to Florida. We have to get the message out to them that Naples
Page 64
February 22, 2005
did okay . We're still here. Our beaches are still open. Our museums
are still open.
But if the museum people and the beach renourishment people
stay on this bandwagon about not changing the funding and not doing
any advertisement, then you go out and you do the work to find the
funding elsewhere. You know, the museums, the beach renourishment
people, there's other agencies out there where you can go and ask for
fundings. You're not doing it because your budgets are coming from
the tourism development tax.
And we go over this argument over and over again. And I know I
sound passionate, but we are looking at 17,000 people in this industry
that if we do not have business in the summer months, it's going to
impact on the county agencies, because those people are going to be
laid off.
There's no way a hotel owner is going to take money out of their
pocket to pay an employee to come in and look at four walls. If we do
not have guests staying in our hotels, we're going to cut staff. Those
people are going to be turning to the state agencies and the county
agencies to help them get through the summer months.
So we support wholeheartedly what Jack is trying to do. Yes, the
beaches are important, yes, the museums are important, but they are
not the lifeblood of this county. And without the tourists coming here
every -- every business in the county and every agency in the county
is going to be affected.
So thank you for listening.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Clark Hill. He will be
followed by Sondra Quinn.
MR. HILL: Good morning. I'm Clark Hill. I'm with the Hilton
Naples. Thank you for listening to me this morning.
Clive made many good points. I just heard on MPR this morning
that as a result of the tsunami, Thailand is flying in 1,200 people,
travel agents, travel riders. That's expensive, but they believe in
Page 65
February 22, 2005
tourism.
I believe in tourism, but I've chosen to live here not because I
have a job here, but because I love the beach. That's the only reason I
live here. Fortunately I can do both. Fortunately I can support my
family and live near the beach, and that's what I'm going to do.
So as a hotelier and one involved in what the hotel association is
trying to do, we've got a lot of issues here that need to be addressed.
They all, though, go directly back to taking care of our environment.
We're not going to be able to do it with the current structure that
we have now. And unless we bring in more tourists -- and
Commissioners, we're not trying to do this right now when you can't
get to RSW, we're trying to do it during the summer when
occupancies are 35 or 40 percent. It has nothing to doing with what
the infrastructure problem is right now.
And don't forget about the sales taxes that are generated that are
going in to build the infrastructure. But we've got commissioners who
say that our industry is low paying and that -- let's see. The people that
work in the hospitality industry are not high income earners, yet that's
where we're getting our money to renourish our beaches.
Let me ask you, how much money in federal funding have we
received? There's available federal funding. How much have we
received, compared to any other county in Florida? Can anybody tell
me that? I'd like to have an answer to that at some point.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe right now it's zero, but I
also read in the paper where Bush is going to cut off a lot of those
funds for beach renourishment, and it's up to locals to determine how
they're going to address that, sir.
MR. HILL: Okay. Well, that's fine. How much have we received
in the past?
All right. Anyway, that's my point. I'm for the community. We
need money. We need money to maintain our quality of life and to
continue to improve, but we're not going to get it this way.
Page 66
February 22, 2005
I'm down here every month asking for money supporting Jack
Wert. Jack's a pro. Jack is targeting the off season when the
infrastructure is not taxed, and we just need to get it figured out.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Sondra Quinn. She will be
followed by your final speaker, Ed Staros.
MS. QUINN: Chairman Coyle and Commissioners, I'm Sondra
Quinn, president and CEO of Naples Botanical Garden. And just so
our last speaker knows, I love tourism too. We all do. That's why we
are working so hard at Naples Botanical Garden to build, sustain, and
promote a regional attraction that we know will bring in 180,000
people to the area a year.
Just as a brief so everybody understands, the past TDC funds,
and we have received them over the past four years, the first monies
granted helped us to do building renovation and allowed us to start our
rental, wedding program, lecture business so that we could start
earning money to work towards a sustainable operating budget.
Second monies we received were promotional monies and some
money to do a market segmentation study to define segments on
which to build so that we can reach that 180,000 visitation over the
next five years, and we're going to be sharing that information with the
CBB, and also most recently a butterfly pavilion and promotional
money so that we can attract folks and families from outside of Collier
County such as they have over on the east coast in Ft. Lauderdale,
about a 500-square- foot pavilion.
I know that the TDC's current interest is to use monies to direct
monies to promotional and advertising efforts, and the Garden
certainly intends to comply with this by building partnerships with
hotels to expand our wedding business and tour group business, which
is just starting to take off, and also build on our research from the
market segmentation study.
Weare not asking for money for our operating budget. Our
Page 67
February 22, 2005
operating budget doesn't come from tourist development funds. I want
to be clear about that.
This past year we had a pro bono person from Goldman Sachs in
New York who came in to help us put together a five-year sustainable
plan for operating, and we are following that.
At present, over the past since I've been here in four years, our
operating budget, we earn 50 percent by admissions, rentals,
weddings, gift shops, events, and lifelong learning, and 50 percent
unearned. Thirty-five percent of the unearned is membership and
annual fund, and the 15 percent is from grants, foundations, and
sponsorships.
So clearly we are self-sustainable. Weare not asking for money
to run the operation.
TDC money is for special exhibits and promotions to get visitors
outside of Collier County to come into the county, and that's going to
have a direct effect on our 50 percent earned revenues, since right now
I can document, since we've received TDC funds, 56 percent of all of
our admissions come from outside of Collier County . We daily take
down zip codes of every person who walks through the door and buys
a ticket.
So the major number of our weddings are also from outside of
Collier County, many of them coming from the east coast, and they
will have an effect also on our op -- so rental income will have an
effect on our sustainability as we continue to raise capital monies
independently.
Weare requestfully -- respectfully requesting that you do not
decrease C- 2 funds, but that you approve the Tourist Development
Council's recommendation to have an open C category where all
museums can compete on an equal playing field based on merit. You
know, all of these museums, all 12 of us, and soon to be 14, make up
Collier County's cultural tapestry, and we should be proud of all of
them. Thank you for your consideration.
Page 68
February 22, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Sondra.
MS. FILSON : Your final speaker is Ed Staros.
MR. STAROS: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Ed Staros,
the managing director of the two Ritz-Carltons here in town, which
represents 1,500 of those 17,000 employees in the business.
Mike Watkins mentioned earlier, and Ron Pennington on
previous meetings has mentioned when this -- the bed tax was initiated
in 1992, that there was a 60/40 split. Quite frankly, I think it ought to
be 70/30, 70 going to the beaches and 30 going to the industry,
because I -- without the beaches, we don't have an industry, and I'm
very, very supportive of, quite frankly, increasing the portion that goes
to our beaches.
I just got back on Sunday night from our annual general
managers' meeting. We have a worldwide general manager's meeting.
We have 60 hotels. So one of the topics was bed tax, quite frankly, in
our meeting. So I asked -- I got -- when I was at the podium I asked
everybody in the audience to raise their hand if museums were funded
through a bed tax. My hand was the only one up in the air.
I think museums are a wonderful thing, however, I don't
understand how we're the only county that I'm aware of that funds the
museums, that it not be the general funds, but the additional funds to
the museums. I really thinks the bottom, bottom line -- it may not be
doable for a year or two -- but I really think you've got to find the
funds within your general budget for the museums, not only at their
present rate, but I think with the way we're growing, you should
probably double it, double the amount of money that goes to the
museums because we need it for our children, we need it for our
cultural exchange; however, we also need some funds in the
marketing.
We have not -- this is shocking, but it's true. We have not booked
a single room night since the hurricanes for the months of September
or October, not one room night, because of the fear of the hurricanes. I
Page 69
February 22, 2005
think we have to let the world know that Collier County is unaffected.
I think we have to let the world know that we are, in fact, open for
business and so forth.
It's not the first six months of the year. We don't want one penny
of advertising to go from January 1st to June 30th. We want all of the
advertising to go from July 1 to December 15th, because it's soft
season that these 1,500 or 17,000 employees that are vulnerable. Ifwe
don't have work, they don't work. It's easy math to figure it out, so
forth.
So I really think maybe this is -- maybe today's vote is not really
the answer, but the answer is to really look at this over the next three
or four years and figure out how to fund both.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Mr. Staros.
MS. FILSON: And that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Was that the last one?
Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Maybe someone out there in
the tourist industry can answer a question for me, and that is, all the
hoteliers obviously pool their money together, and how much money
do they put forth for advertising that we supplement with?
MR. ST AROS: The two Ritz-Carltons -- I can't speak for my
colleagues -- but the two Ritz-Carltons spend $6 million a year on
advertising, sales, and marketing to bring --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just here in Naples areas?
MR. ST AROS: Just for these two hotels.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. ST AROS: $6 million a year to bring people in for the
greater -- and I go to the meetings in World Travel, Martin, London,
and ITB in Berlin representing Naples, Florida, with those dollars. So
I'm spending my money to help the whole industry. Of course, I try to
fill my hotel first, and then I give the rest of it to Mike and the team.
Page 70
February 22, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But what I'm getting at is that, do
you have a consortium here that basically has an advertising budget
where all hoteliers --
MR. STAROS: No.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- in Collier County --
MR. STAROS: It's a little difficult because of the different
brands, you know. The Marriott brand versus the Ritz brand versus the
Registry brand and so forth. And commingling dollars is very
difficult. So the answer is no.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's your thought on looking at
the four cent and using that strictly for advertising for Collier County,
and that would be set aside and then we wouldn't go through this
argument every year to take care of it?
MR. STAROS: Well, it's a topic that's worth discussing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because --
MR. STAROS: However, you have to keep in mind that the
higher your tax base is, the more state association business and
regional business gets scared in spending the money. In fact, there is,
quite frankly, around the country for those who have a sales tax and
bed tax in excess of 10 percent, they're actually losing business
because of it because the time of year that you need the business is the
soft seasons, and the soft seasons are the penny pinchers, if you will,
that are looking for a bargain. And the difference of a penny here and
a penny there multiplied times their thousand people with the XYZ
organization is the difference between coming here and maybe not
coming here; however, I think it's worth a whole round of discussions
on that -- on that topic.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because I think the one penny that
would be set aside strictly for advertising, I think that would benefit
the hoteliers, and I don't think that would be a big burden to the people
that come here to Naples seeking sunshine and beaches. And I have to
agree with you wholeheartedly, that I think we need to really address
Page 71
February 22, 2005
the issues with beaches.
MR. STAROS: I think eventually, though, you have to address
the issues of museums. We -- you know, we're going from, what did
you say, nine to 14 museums, and then, you know, 10 years from now
there may be 20, et cetera.
I think we have to figure out a way to get a slice of the general
fund to the museums, because we desperately need the museums as
well.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think the county museums should
be foremost in our schedule.
MR. STAROS: I agree.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Since we're taking on additional
burdens with other -- with other museums or, for instance, like the
train depot, and I think when we do that, we have to make sure that we
take care of the county museums first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Stay close by, Mr. Staros.
MR. WERT: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
Okay. I've got two more commissioners who mayor may not
want to ask questions, but --
MR. STAROS: Okay, sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have several questions, if you
don't mind.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- we had a little history of
-- about the promotion with 60/40 split, 60 percent beach, 40 percent
promotion. Where are we at today with promotion? What is the cut,
what percentage?
MR. WERT : For the record, Jack Wert, tourism director. The
current split is 66 percent of the funds goes to all of the beach
category A proj ects, 18 percent goes to category C for the museums,
and 16 percent to category B for promotion.
Page 72
February 22, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So you're from 40 percent
originally down to 16 percent --
MR. WERT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- for promotion?
How much less do we spend in marketing than other coastal
counties?
MR. WERT: If you compare it -- if you look at counties, big and
small, if you put it on an even playing field of comparing how much
we spend per lodging unit, we spend a little over $100 per lodging
unit, Lee County is about $200 per lodging unit, and they go up from
there. Even small Charlotte County spends over $200 for lodging unit
for the promotion of their area. And so we are decidedly behind the
others in terms of how much we're dedicating to promotion our
wonderful community here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the rationale for placing
new advertising in new market areas?
MR. WERT: Commissioner, if you look at what we're currently
doing, about all we can afford to do is promote within the State of
Florida and primarily on the east coast of Florida. So that campaign
last summer was Miami to Palm Beach. That's really where we
concentrated our effort. And, yes, that's about 60 percent of the
visitation that we get. That's the smart place to put your money if
you're short of funds, leverage every dollar.
But by going to new markets such as Chicago and New York,
which are great markets in season as well -- but we get very little
visitation summer months from there. In fact, it's a different kind of
visitor that we get in the summer months. It's the family business that
we get in the summer, the people that don't come during season. So we
really do need to get the word out to them.
And when we researched in those areas -- and incidentally, we
went and we tested our Paradise Coast, the logo, and all of the
advertising that goes with it, it scored number one among all the other
Page 73
February 22, 2005
beach destinations that we tested it against. They didn't even know
who was testing, but they picked us number one.
And they said to us, if we see this kind of advertising, we're
going to respond favorably. We're going to pick up the phone, we're
going to go to your website, we're going to come to your destination.
And oh, by the way, you're pretty close by, because we've got direct
air service from both of those areas into Ft. Myers.
So it's really important for us to get that message there. We
simply aren't reminding them that we're here, but our competition is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've got three more questions.
Won't this bring more people in the summertime clogging up our
roads?
MR. WERT: Well, certainly it will bring some more people, and
primarily they'll be coming here and probably driving their cars to the
resorts and places that they stay.
An interesting thing happened last summer. And traditionally in
this community the tourists have been blamed for the traffic that we
have. After Easter last year when our seasonal residents went home,
the traffic went away, it went back to normal, but our hotels stayed
full throughout the summer. They were really doing much better
business than they ever had before. As I said before, it was the best
summer.
So it really isn't so much our visitors that are, as you said,
clogging up our roads or making it difficult to get into a restaurant.
Our seasonal residents -- and they are terribly important to our
economy here, and we love them, we absolutely do -- but they're the
ones that you see out in their cars all day long. The others are here,
they're at the beach, they're doing their thing, their vacation thing.
They aren't necessarily out driving around on our highways.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Last week I heard the CACs
meeting, and I think you did a presentation. Correct me if I'm wrong.
What I heard was, the beach projects are fully funded and there is an
Page 74
February 22, 2005
excess of money for those projects.
MR. WERT: You heard correct, Commissioner. The -- all of the
projects that are budgeted for fiscal year '05 in category A are all fully
funded. All of the mandates for the set asides for parks, for the
catastrophic reserves, all of those are fully funded. And yes, we are
anticipating a sizable surplus above and beyond what we projected
this year for revenue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. One more question, and I
won't make any political statements or that.
The question is, don't you have a venue to assist the Botanical
Garden in promoting the Garden?
MR. WERT: Well, certainly our advertising funds are what we
do to promote the area. And, in fact, they could co-op with us in some
of the things that we do. Some of the publications that go in, they
could use some of their promotion dollars to co-op with us.
In fact, in answer to Commissioner Halas' question, about
$250,000 comes from our hotel and our other attraction partners to
help us in buying advertising. We buy the space and then we co-op it
with them so that we reduce our overall cost.
Botanical Garden could certainly do the same kind of thing of
promoting with us. And, in fact, that's the thing that we've talked to
the museums about as well. And, in fact, they're in out visitor guide
this year for that very reason, that they see the benefit of being a part
of how we're marketing the entire destination.
We can't forget that we've got to convince people to come to the
destination first, then to the hotel and the other attractions that we
have here in the area.
I hope that answers your question, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Was that the last question, Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Last question.
Page 75
February 22, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I've got a couple
questions, too. First one is that on December 17th we had a joint
meeting/workshop with the TDC, and we came up with an
understanding we were going to go and increase the museum category,
C-1 to 22 percent, decrease the category 2 to 4.764 percent, use the
surplus funds over proj ected revenues for all categories for promotion.
I'm a little bit lost at why six weeks later the TDC comes back on
January 24th and they make recommendations that seemed to go in a
different direction than the original workshop. Can you explain that
differential?
MR. WERT: Well, I would say, first of all, they were support --
Tourist Development Council was supportive, Commissioner, of the --
investing the excess funds. That part of it they went along with and
did vote in favor of supporting that.
What they did not support and had a different proposal on was on
the museum piece, and that was, they felt and they voted to
recommend that all of the museums compete for whatever funds there
were in category C, basically making it a one -- one category, not a
C-1 and C-2, and that was what their recommendation was.
We're bringing forth -- the staff recommendation is that we stay
with the recommendation that we made at the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I agree with that.
MR. WERT: -- workshop.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I do have one more question
related to that, then I've got one other question for Mr. Jamro.
On this particular recommendation, it doesn't list in there how the
council voted. Was it unanimous?
MR. WERT: No, sir, it was not. It was -- we didn't have the full
group there. We had five members present, and it was a 3-2 vote.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So I tell you, that would
be very helpful in our decision-making process if those kind of
Page 76
February 22, 2005
numbers were in there.
Now, Mr. Jamro, if you could give me just a moment of your
time.
MR. JAMRO: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My question is related to this
breakdown the way it is. Are we going to have enough to be able to
cover the new museum at the Naples Depot and still be able to do
what we have to do with our remaining museums, or are we going to
have a cash shortfall?
I know we never have enough money. That's true with any
department you ask. But in reality?
MR. JAMRO: For the record, Ron Jamro, your museum director.
Yes, Commissioner, we still have that list of --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mandates.
MR. JAMRO: -- well, it's about $2.3 million of unfinished
projects. A lot of it is the ranch. You know, we adjust priorities, did
some staffing considerations now with adding a fourth county
museum.
The short answer to that question is, to operate effectively the
Naples Depot, yes, that's sufficient and gets us running there. Is it
sufficient to undertake a full restoration of the building and all the
programs we'd like to see? No, that's going to fall short of the mark.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we're going to be in worse
shape than we were last year and possibly the year before?
MR. JAMRO: No, it's just the project list gets longer and longer
of things that aren't finished. But you know, we've -- that's nothing
new, and we just move through that list one at a time.
I wouldn't say we're worse off. I think we -- on the benefits side,
we would be in the center of town with a brand new, you know,
facility, a whole new potential, all new opportunities. Those would
have some impact on our revenue situation as well as, I dare say, on
their fundraising.
Page 77
February 22, 2005
So on balance, I think we're coming out ahead here, yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You said the project list continues
to get -- this is for Ron.
You say that the proj ect list continues to grow. Are we
accomplishing anything off that project list? I mean, are we getting
anything falling off of that proj ect list, or is it just continuing to grow
and not meeting the needs and desires of what we need to address on
our museums?
MR. JAMRO: No, Commissioner. We are -- we are dwindling it
down. This year was a little -- a little unusual. We had hoped for some
additional fund with the unfunded request. That was sort of in limbo,
and there was aid in that request. But that will either be postponed or
not forthcoming this year.
But the exhibits in Everglades City and here at the main museum
are moving along. We'll have those wrapped up this year. That's
coming off the list. Next year we've got some proj ects in Immokalee.
Of course, the depot will be the main concern. And that -- so, yeah, it's
getting longer, but we are -- we're working it down.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: One other question I have. This
pertains to anybody that's on the CAC committee. My understanding
is that we have an influx of additional funds this year, but I believe in
the presentation, that we don't have anything in reserve, is that correct,
or our reserves are very low in case we ran into a situation?
MR. PENNINGTON: That is correct. Right now, until a
determination is made about financing for the Vanderbilt Beach
garage, we have gone over two-thirds of the way into our emergency
reserves, which is supposed to be one and a half million. We're down
into like 107,000.
Page 78
February 22, 2005
We're anticipating and hopeful that you all will approve
financing of the Vanderbilt Beach garage, which will alleviate that
problem by spreading that cost over 10 years. And still, although we
will be full funded, and agreed to that, but our reserve level will be the
lowest of this year for any of the 10 out-years that we have examined,
so that's a --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And how would that affect the
operation of the beaches if we would have, God forbid, a hurricane
that would hit the beaches and take out a lot of the sand? How would
that affect --
MR. PENNINGTON: Well, it could have a significant effect. We
get our million and a half reserve, emergency reserve back, restored.
That would certainly give us a big start on it. And ultimately we
would expect FEMA reimbursement money, but that comes later. We
have to go ahead and have funds for our own expenditures to recoup,
and then we would have that reimbursed later.
But that is a big concern, because with a big storm, we can be
devastated, as some of our neighbors have been, and we need funds to
get back into an active situation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Chairman, I have one last question
-- and I see Jack's up, so he must have read my mind -- that is on
surveys that you do of people that use the hotels here in the Naples
area in the surveys, what is the top thing that they like? Is it the
beaches and the quality of sand and the cleanliness of the sand? Or is
it the accommodations?
MR. WERT: It is a combination of things. The majority of the
people do like the beaches. There's no question that that is our number
one asset.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. WERT: And that's what we hear the most. Interestingly
enough, the activity they like the most and what they spend the most
money on is shopping. So they're out really spending money in our
Page 79
February 22, 2005
community in helping all -- so many, many businesses here.
So, yes, we attract them because of the beach, but they spend
money throughout the community. So there's lots of different -- and
they love the shopping here. That's one of the real attractions here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. Just a couple
questions myself.
With the Naples Depot, aren't we going to have an opportunity
there for the tourism industry to promote their locations as it is so that
-- you know, I think that -- what my point is, if we do and if we're
going to offer them that opportunity, that will be a way for us to use
the money that we've -- that we're fixing up the depot with to help the
tourism industry, is what I'm going at.
MR. JAMRO: Oh, yes, Commissioner. The initial plan is that
first entryway, which really no one has used for about 20 years, it's
been an office, we'll be opening that up to the public. Now, that is
very much sort of a Savannah, Georgia, model, what they do with
their depot where it's sort of a mini Chamber of Commerce, if you
will, for the attractions and the various services in town.
And I talked to Jack about that yesterday, as a matter of fact, how
we can partner, do something really special there, and so that's
definitely in the plans.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had understood that, but I just
wanted to ask it on the record.
MR. JAMRO: I believe it was your idea, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I believe it was, but that isn't -- that
isn't important.
I was wondering, for Jack Wert, is there an opportunity for us --
if we were able to -- to use these extra dollars or at least some of them
to advertise, is there a way for us to check markets out and see how
effective our advertising is by, say, choosing two like markets,
advertising in one and not advertising in the other, and find out how
Page 80
February 22, 2005
much business is derived from those two markets, one with and one
without?
MR. WERT: The answer, Commissioner -- Jack Wert, tourism
director, for the record. There is a way to do that. And, in fact, I see
Senor Hames, our advertising agency president in the back, and that is
something that we have discussed of ways to test our -- the
effectiveness of our advertising, and certainly that's something that we
could consider.
This particular summer we've got two target areas, both the New
York and Chicago area that we know we can get considerable impact
in and visitors from, and I'd hate to play one against the other. I'd like
to -- but we certainly could test running advertising in certain suburbs
within the Chicago area, for instance, and not running it in others, and
you can do that with newspaper and that kind of thing and see where
you get the impact and the visitation, because we definitely do
measure where people are coming from, so we would know in that
kind of a test.
Is that possible, Senor?
MR. HAMES: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would like to see that for future
data collection.
MR. WERT: Very important.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Also, did I understand correctly, if
we -- if we vote to finance the parking garage, then our reserves -- our
reserve fund and the TDC dollar beaches, or category A, would then--
the problem would be solved then; is that it?
MR. WERT: Yes. The financing of the Vanderbilt parking
garage is important to make all that happen. In addition to that, we've
also got catastrophic reserves which we fund every year. So if we did
have a storm, as the question was asked, we have other reserve funds
to go into, and we don't touch those unless we do have a disaster.
I think the other side of it is, if we had a huge storm, our major
Page 81
February 22, 2005
beach renourishment money that we have budgeted now, certainly
some of that would be part of the work that we would be doing to
restore the beach.
So we really do have the funding there. It's not that we're taking
money away. Everything truly is funded. And there's certainly -- it's
true that the financing of the garage is important to make that happen,
but that seems to be a good business decision as well because of how
that proj ect has increased in price since we first talked about it many
years ago. There's no way that we could ever pay cash for that project
today. So it makes good sense to do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Essential to beach access.
Okay. So from what I understand then, the hotels are really --
really concerned about their summer business, and that article that Mr.
Walcott showed us from the USA Today, man, that's really
devastating to see something like that, and it's telling the whole United
States, don't go there because of hurricanes, no matter where it's
located.
I would like to see us take that money this year, this year, one
year, and take it and help -- help our tourism industry before it fails
because of -- because of ads just like this. And that isn't even an ad,
that's a reporting, you know. So that was really impressive.
And can we take just one year and take all of that money and put
it into the advertising for the summer business?
MR. WERT: In effect, Commissioner, that's what we are current
-- that's what we're proposing is, this ordinance change would allow us
to do that. We can't do that without an ordinance change, so that's
really what we're doing.
Frankly, one of the things we talked about at the TDC meeting,
and I think it's important to stress, is that, yes, we have a surplus, and
every year we're going to work with the budget office to be sure that
we're budgeting accurately and we're forecasting accurately for our
revenue for the future.
Page 82
February 22,2005
So in future years we may not have the kind of re -- or the excess
funds that we're looking at right now. Right now we've got the need
and we've got the money in excess funds, and we would like to invest
it this year.
The way the ordinance as we're proposing it would be written, it
would say the commission may add additional dollars to category B.
That gives you the option every year to do some or none. If we faced a
problem in the future and we had a reserve or we had some surplus
funds, we would be able to go through that process and make our
plans quickly to overcome a problem.
Right now we have to go through this whole process of changing
the ordinance and all the rest. What we're trying to do now is put the
wording in place so that in the future the county commission has that
flexibility to invest those dollars if needed or not, in any amount of the
surplus as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, and then I'm
going to have some questions,
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I was going to make a
motion just to move the item along, but I'll wait till you have answered
your questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sure anxious to move it along, but --
yeah, if you don't mind, I'll be happy to try to be brief, if I can.
Jack, I -- there's some disconnects for me here. Mr. Staros has
told us that he spends about $9 million on --
MR. STAROS: Six.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Six.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry, $6 million on advertising.
MR. STAROS: No, advertising, sales, and marketing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Advertising, sales --
MR. STAROS: And salespeople to go out knocking on doors.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, okay, I understand. And that has
not produced any bookings for this season that we're talking about.
Page 83
February 22, 2005
My concern is how is your few hundred thousand dollars going
to do what Mr. Staros' advertising, sales, and market staff have not
been able to do?
MR. WERT: Jack Wert, tourism director, for the record. A
couple of things come into play when you're thinking about how you
promote the area. One, in the meetings area, and that's an important
part of it -- and that's really what Mr. Staros is looking at.
One of the new programs that's part of the Visit Florida $4.75
million that the governor has given them to help get us through this
summer, includes a weather warranty program where a meeting
planner could, in fact, apply for this coverage that Visit Florida would
pay for.
If they get into a situation where they planned a meeting and they
have to move it to another area or a different time of year and there is
a rate differential, this insurance steps in and reimburses the meeting
planner for those.
That's something that we can promote to meeting planners. That's
something that we can do right away to say, number one,
Naples/Marco Island/Everglades was not affected by last year's
storms. Everything is in place. We're ready for business. The history
of our area, frankly, says that the chances of having another
occurrence like that are very slim.
And so we have a lot of things going for us. We just need to
change the perception that Florida's under that huge cloud, don't come
here in the summer months. That's the misinformation we've got to
overcome.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I understand that. But I'm sure that the
hotels must be aware of the money that is being provided by the State
of Florida. They must be making this known to the event planners that
they're talking to.
What I'm concerned about is that apparently has not produced the
desired result to get them bookings for this very critical season. I'm
Page 84
February 22, 2005
trying to find out what we can do differently to solve the problem.
Now, the other question I need to ask you is, that you have
traditionally committed your funds to advertising in Southeast Florida
for this period of time. Now, surely there's no one in Southeast Florida
who thinks that Naples was devastated, okay.
MR. WERT: True.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now -- so I don't really understand why
we don't expect to get more visitors from Southeast Florida here, just
as we have in past years. And if we got a return of$19 to $1 spent
advertising in Southeast Florida last year when there were hurricanes
around, why can't we expect to get the same performance this year?
MR. WERT: Jack Wert, tourism director.
Commissioner, we do expect that same kind of return from
Southeast Florida, and our regular campaign will still target that area.
We're not going to go away from what has been good for us in the
past; however, what happens is every year we lose those people that
we attracted last year, some of them, and some of our repeat visitors
are being attracted to other areas because our competition is really out
there pushing to get that business.
So we see the Keys running ads in this destination trying to get
people from Collier County to go to the Keys. They do the same thing
on the east coast of Florida. We're all kind of vying for that same
visitor dollar.
The difference is that we aren't doing it in the intensity that they
are, and so because of that, like any other advertiser, if you don't have
the reach in frequency that your competition does, your message isn't
getting to as many people, and, therefore, you begin to lose market
share. That's -- and we're going to stay with that Southeast Florida, but
we want to get some new blood, if you will, from new areas.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But Jack, the same conditions applied last
year. Last year we were losing some of those other people --
MR. WERT: Oh, yeah.
Page 85
February 22, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- to other destinations, too, and we're
always competing with other people, and my intent is not to nitpick. I
just feel more comfortable -- when we're going to talk about changing
an ordinance, I feel more comfortable if I clearly understand the plan
and we have some methods of measuring the effectiveness.
And I am concerned to some extent that we're going to take
reserve funds and allocate them to markets we have not really pursued
for these particular months in the past without a clear indication as to
what the potential return is, and we seem to be ignoring the fact that
we had a pretty good production from Southeast Florida last year, and
I don't understand why we are not getting the same kind of response
this year, or maybe it's just too early for those people to be booking
for this period. I don't know.
But in any event, you spent $300,000 in advertising in Southeast
Florida last year, and you had pretty good results, according to your
report.
MR. WERT: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would hope we would do the same thing
this year.
And -- the other problem that I have is that, comparing how much
we spend with how much somebody else spends is, in my estimation,
not a performance criteria. That's like comparing how much you spend
on food and how much I spend on food. I've gained 15 pounds in the
last three months, you haven't.
So it just -- it is not a good measure in my mind. I would like to
see what we're doing with respect to occupancy rates by location, by
geographic area, where we're getting our best bang for the buck in
occupancy rates. That information must be available. And I've asked
for that before.
It still is a very, very important issue for me, and I would hope
that we would start getting some -- some reports which clearly show
how an expenditure in certain geographical areas results in an increase
Page 86
February 22, 2005
in beds in the head -- or heads in the bed in the hotels. That would be a
very, very meaningful figure for me and help us gauge, I think, how
effectively we really are spending the money rather than trying to
compare it with how much Ft. Myers spends on their promotions.
But I'm still a little unsure about the Vanderbilt parking garage
issue. I hear from -- I think I heard from Ron that you're depleting
your reserves for beaches to the lowest level in recent years, and I hear
from Jack that we're really okay.
I'd like to resolve that some way, if I can. Can somebody present
this to me a little more clearly?
MR. WERT: I think we're going to put up here the 1 O-year plan
on the visualizer that may help a little bit, explain that, Commissioner.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'm going to -- I'm going to zoom
in. If you take a look at -- the first column is FY-'05, and we're going
to zoom in to that particular number right there, because that's where
everybody's talking about it being the lowest level.
Okay. And we're basically talking -- Commissioner, what we're
talking about right here is, on the yellow line it says, general reserves,
and that's the lowest amount it's been ever. And this is -- this basically
balances out 2005.
You'll also notice that the catastrophic reserve, which is just
above that, is at 1.5 million. And it increases by $500,000 based on
your funding guidance from a year and a half ago, all the way out until
-- the goal was to have about $10 million some 20 years down the pike
as far as that reserve so that you'd have it.
And then you'll see this general reserve moving forward into
2006, being $5,746,375; 2007, $4,591,275. And it stays about that
level, goes down a little bit depending on the major projects that are
done.
It goes, in 2009 -- I'm going to move it up a little bit -- 2009, to
2.3 million; 2.3 in 2010; and then it goes to 741 because you have a
major renourishment that transpires.
Page 87
February 22, 2005
You'll also notice that your major renourishment reserves, based
on your funding guidance from a year and a half ago, the major
renourishment's going to happen in -- got to make sure this thing's
moved over so my pen is -- in '06, and then there's $2 million set aside
each year to built that back up again so that you can have your reserve
build back up so when you have your next major renourishment in six
years, seven years, that you'll have those dollars that will be there that
you can apply against them.
And the discussion was, the Vanderbilt Beach garage being --
being able to be financed. And what's going to happen is, from what I
understand, the principal is coming out of the allocation. It goes into
beach access dollars based on your funding guidance, and the interest
payment for that year will come out of the beach side. Am I correct,
Leo?
MR. OCHS: It's a split.
MR. MUDD: It's a split.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Bottom line, what is your
professional opinion here? Is that reserve too low? Should we not take
that reserve lower?
MR. MUDD: You asking my opinion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: My opinion, Commissioner, is, if you're not going
to get the dollars this summer because of a bad advertising season,
you're going to have -- you're going to have some issues with next
year's budget. You're betting on the come on this one. You're putting
dollars to try to entice people to come here so that you've got those
additional dollars in order to cover through the summer season.
If we spend the money and the bet doesn't come in and people
were scared because of four hurricanes -- I was scared of Charley. The
other three I wasn't scared about. I was a little nervous, but I wasn't
scared. Charley -- Charley I watched stuff fly past my window here in
the county compound. It bothered me a little bit.
Page 88
February 22, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: But if you can entice those people to come in,
you'll have those dollars that will come in.
One of the things that bother me is, you're taking half the --
you're taking half the money that -- for season and you're taking those
additional dollars over budget and you're putting them against
advertising. If it doesn't come in the latter part of that six months,
you've got -- you've got an issue. That's the part that you -- that's a
little bit risky here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. My final comment, then I'll go to
Commissioner Henning and we'll try to get this thing to resolution.
We're being asked to make a change to an ordinance that's been
around for some time, and I don't feel comfortable doing that without
a better plan.
You've told us how much money you want and you've told us
generally where you're going to be expending it, but I really don't see
a good, clear marketing plan here.
We've talked about Southeast Florida, we've talked about the
Northeast and the Midwest. I don't see any real identification as to
how we're going to divide it between those, what our past experience
has been, what our expected production is likely to be as a result of
those, and I think I would require that before I start changing
ordinances.
But with that, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to go ahead and make
a motion to approve based upon the need for summer tourism, based
upon, I think, that we -- we need to trust our marketing expert unless
the time becomes (sic) that we take over that duty and do it here.
My concern is, is we're not going to have monies for the beaches
in the future, therefore, I think it's critical that we spend the monies
now for -- to make sure that we get the summer people down here to
expend their monies to increase tourist tax revenues, to have steady
Page 89
February 22, 2005
employment and less reliability on social government programs.
And like Ron Pennington stated, that the coastland people have a
vested interest in the beaches. I think that we all do, and I think that
we need to invest in our future.
So my motion is to approve staff recommendations.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just had a question. I was going to
second it myself, except I wanted to know in this change to the
ordinance, does it specify "may" in there? So in other words, each
year it can come up but if we decide the money is needed more for
beaches, we don't -- okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's my understanding.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That is true, right?
MR. WERT: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Coletta.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Henning, when you
said staff recommendations, are you saying that we're going to take
and move -- add 3 percent to C-l; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the way the executive
summary is written.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And what are you saying --
are you proposing a dollar amount that's going to be moved towards
the advertising fund, or are saying the whole -- that this is going to be
a one-time shot that's going --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This issue is coming back to us.
We're just giving direction -- from my understanding, this item is
giving direction and it's going to come back for the final approval. In
Page 90
February 22, 2005
the final approval process, it's going to take a supermajority of
commISSIoners.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if this -- just add on, if this
fails by a super -- not having a supermajority, we need to give further
direction so we don't waste more time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So right as it stands right now, we're
going to add 3 percent into the county museum, correct?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: County-owned museums --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and taken out of --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right, okay. Thank you for the
clarification.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed? Aye.
So it passes 4-1, with Commissioner Coyle objecting.
Okay. We go --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Lunch.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- to lunch. We are adjourned for lunch.
(A luncheon recess was taken.)
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, it's now 1 :06.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. Mudd: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
Page 91
February 22, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We are now in session.
Item #8A
RZ-2003-AR-4961 SOUTHERN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,
INC. REPRESENTED BY JEFF L. DAVIDSON, P.E., OF
DAVIDSON ENGINEERING, INC., REQUESTING A REZONING
FROM "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL AND "C-2ST"
COMMERCIAL CONVENIENCE WITH A SPECIAL
TREATMENT OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS TO "C-3"
COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE ZONING DISTRICT FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF THE US 41 AND SR 951
INTERSECTION, FURTHER DESCRIBED IN SECTION 3,
TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA - MOTION TO DENY - WITHDRAWN BY MOTION
MAKER; MOTION TO REOPEN PUBLIC HEARING -
APPROVED - MOTION TO WITHDRAW PETITION -
A.E.EROVED
We're going to go to 8A.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And that is --this item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members. It's RZ-2003-AR-4961, Southern Development
Company, Inc., represented by JeffL. Davidson, P.E., of Davidson
Engineering, Inc., requesting a rezoning from "A" rural agricultural
and C-2ST, commercial convenience with a special treatment overlay
zoning district to C-3 commercial immediate zoning district for
property located east of the U.S. 41 and State Road 951 intersection,
further described in Section 3, Township 51 south, Range 26 east,
Collier County, Florida. This property consists of 6.07 plus acres.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could I ask that all persons who are
going to participate in this hearing please stand up and be sworn in,
Page 92
February 22, 2005
that includes all public speakers.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Commissioners, do you have any ex parte disclosures for item
number 8A?
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I do. I've had numerous letters
from residents in that area. Oh, excuse me. Np, I don't. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's a different item. No
disclosure on 8A.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner
Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I -- the only disclosure I've got is
I discussed this with staff. Are we going to be able to continue this
without four commissioners here? It takes a supermajority, won't it?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It will take a supermajority.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. In any case, you go ahead
and make your disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have no disclosures, so we'll wait till we
get one more commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. There he is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have four commissioners now.
We can begin. Who is going to begin the presentation?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, wait, hold it. You haven't
got Commissioner Henning's disclosures.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And mine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll get them, when they get here.
Okay. Do you have any disclosures, Commissioner Fiala, for
8A?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one second. No, I have no
disclosures for 8A.
Page 93
February 22, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: None.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. No disclosures.
MS. SMITH: Good afternoon, my name is Kelly Smith. I'm the
planning coordinator for Davidson Engineering. I'm here today
representing Southern Development Company, who is the applicant
and developer of the subject property.
With me today I also have Jeff Davidson with Davidson
Engineering, Jeremy Sterk of Hoover Planning, and Mario Curiale,
who is the president of Southern Development Company.
The applicant is requesting a joint rezone of two properties to
C- 3, which is the commercial intermediate district. One of these
properties is currently zoned rural agricultural, and the other property
is designated C-2ST on the Collier County zoning map.
Just prior to the public hearing at the planning commission, it
was discovered that there is an error in the zoning map, and the C-2ST
property is actually zoned C-1 ST.
The county attorney determined that the advertising of the rezone
request complied with the intent of the advertising requirements, and
to further ensure that the intent of the advertising requirements was
met, a letter was sent to all property owners within 500 feet notifying
them of the error to the zoning map.
The subject property is located on the north side of U.S. 41 east
of Collier Boulevard adjacent to the recently-constructed CVS. And as
you can see on the screen here, this is the subject location. This
smaller property is the agriculturally-zoned property, and this is the
property that's designated C-2ST.
The rezone properties are part of the overall development by the
property owner, which encompasses two other properties. Bear with
me here for a minute.
This easternmost property is Home Center Plaza, Phase I. This
property is zoned C-5 and is presently developed with two buildings
Page 94
"'--,.-_..,--
February 22, 2005
that were recently constructed for Marco Building Supply.
The center property is Home Center Plaza, Phase II. This
property is currently vacant and awaiting SDP approval. The proposed
development consists of two retail buildings and a restaurant.
The adj acent properties to the north and to the west -- I'm sorry --
and to the east are part of the Falling Waters Beach Resort PUD, and
the adjacent property to the west is the recently-constructed CVS, and
their nature preserve area is immediately adjacent to the subject
property.
The subject property is located within activity center 18.
According to the future land use element, activity centers are designed
to concentrate almost all new commercial zoning in locations where
traffic impacts can readily be accommodated to avoid strip and
disorganized patterns of commercial development and to create focal
points within the community. We believe that the requested rezone
meets the intent of the activity center designation and also represents
the best and highest use of this property.
In response to concerns raised by the neighbors at the planning
commission meeting, the original site plan has been revised.
The original site plan consists of three buildings with proposed
uses, including a bank with associated offices, an office building, and
the third building with a restaurant on the first floor.
This site plan provides for the required amount of parking for the
uses proposed. The proposed native vegetation preserve is 1.52 acres
in size and serves as the native vegetation preserve requirement for
both the subject rezone property and the adjacent phase II property.
Both preserves must be located on the subject property because the
native preserve cannot be recreated on the phase II property.
The original site plan also proposed a lake with a gazebo or just a
walkway for water management. The native vegetation preserve and
link were also designed to serve as a buffer between the Falling
Waters PUD and the proposed commercial development.
Page 95
February 22, 2005
The revised site plan now consists of four buildings with
proposed uses still including a bank with associated offices, a
restaurant, an office building, and a retail building. Again, the
proposed vegetation preserve will be 1.52 acres. The lake will still be
used for water management but has been greatly reduced in size.
This site plan, as presented, does not account for the required
amount of parking, so further modifications to this plan would be
required. This plan was simply put together to provide another
example of how the site could be developed.
This rezone request was heard by the EAC in January. They
recommended approval of the requested rezone with the stipulation
that the EAC review the development prior to approval of the site
development plan. This stipulation was established in part because the
applicant has not yet begun the environmental resource permitting
process through South Florida Water Management District. This
process is quite extensive, and the applicant did not want to begin the
permitting process until the zoning was in place.
Although the growth management plan defers wetland mitigation
to the South Florida Water Management District, the EAC wanted to
make sure that the appropriate permits are in place prior to approval of
subsequent site development plan.
This request was also heard by the planning commission in
January. The planning commission recommended denial, we believe,
for two primary reasons. The first reason was for concern over
transportation issues. Transportation planning staff recommended
denial of the rezoning because this segment of Collier Boulevard is
currently operating over capacity, and there are no scheduled
improvements within the county's five-year work program.
The transportation staff cited growth management policy 5.1,
which states that the commission will review all rezone requests with
consideration of their impact on the overall system and shall not
approve any request that significantly impacts a roadway segment
Page 96
February 22, 2005
operating or projected to operate at an unacceptable level of service
within the five-year planning period unless specific mitigating
stipulations are approved.
Transportation planning staff also recommended that the
condition that any future site development plan for the subject
property shall not be approved until the level of service for the
intersection of activity center 18 meets concurrency standards could
be an acceptable mitigation stipulation. And I would, again, remind
you that this property is located within an activity center which is
designed to concentrate commercial development in locations where
traffic impacts can be readily accommodated.
The second reason for the planning commission recommendation
of denial is that the rezone request is for a standard rezone and not in
the form of a PUD. Rezones within mixed use activity centers are
encouraged to be in the form of a PUD, however, not required to be in
the form of a PUD.
County planning staff indicated that while the proposed rezone
application is not in the form of a PUD, it does generate consistency
with the surrounding non-PUD commercial properties.
The planning commission was also concerned with the ability to
place conditions on approval. The neighboring property owners have
concern over restaurant location and the placement of the masonry
wall.
Planning commission did not feel that the Board of
Commissioners would be able to place conditions upon approval that
would satisfy the neighboring property owners' concerns.
Discussion with the county attorney's office indicates that the
board has in the past placed conditions on standard rezone approval
and may do so especially if the applicant expressly agrees to
stipulations.
In accordance with that conversation, the applicant is agreeable
to the following stipulations for approval should the board feel that
Page 97
February 22, 2005
stipulations are warranted.
The first stipulation is that we agreed to the stipulation from the
Environmental Advisory Committee that the site development plan be
approved by that board prior to approval by staff.
The applicant wishes to propose a 60-foot setback for buildings
from the rear property line. This condition would be consistent with
the conditions placed on the rezoning of the adjacent C-5 property.
Third, building architecture for the rezone property will be
consistent with the architectural theme of the overall development.
Number four, that the masonry wall with exterior landscaping
will be installed as required by the land development code.
Number five, that the site development plan will not be approved
until the level of service for the activity center 18 meets concurrency
standards as recommended by transportation planning staff.
And number five, that the applicant agrees to pay for sidewalk
construction in lieu of installation due to the inability to install the
sidewalk within the right-of-way at this time.
We believe that these stipulations satisfy the concerns of the
neighbors at Falling Waters Beach Resort while still providing for
appropriate development of the subject property.
At this time I'd like to introduce Mr. Curiale, who would like to
make a few comments.
MR. CURIALE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I guess you all
know me for quite a while, but for the record I would like to state my
name. My name's Mario Curiale. I'm the owner and developer of the
subj ect property.
I would like to brief somewhat what took place in the planning
commission meeting, and then I'll go forward to what we have at this
point in time.
I was kind of very concerned to the fact they I really prepared
diligently a nice plan to show what good we really do for adjacent
neighbors and also the surrounding (sic), and also the availability for
Page 98
February 22, 2005
the entire area, can develop an area that we can all be appreciative to.
With all said and done, I felt somewhat on my own, I guess I did
make a mistake at the time because I felt that since we did not provide
the wall at the time -- that was my main conceptual plan based on the
development I've been doing in the past.
Since we had already a preserve of about 60 feet, already
vegetation, I felt maybe by putting a wall in there would deter from
the view from the condo. Instead of seeing a wall, you see trees. I
thought that was a much better idea to do that. And we were planning
to have some kind of a chain link fence blanching (sic) to the
vegetation, but I guess I was wrong because the people did not --
people from Falling Water did not really like the concept. They like
the wall to be continued there.
So with that in mind, we also made some main adjustments
worked out in place. But the one that really caught me by surprise was
when Mark Strain, out of the blue moon, come up with the idea, says
that we cannot really do much with this application unless you
introduce the application as a PUD.
And it kind of made me feel bad for somewhat, because we
already had two rezone in place with no PUD, and we only had one
little rezone, like six acres of rezone, which two and a half, almost
three acres already preserved. One and a half is by a preserve, and the
other, almost an acre, is by the lake. So we only have about three and
a half acres to development. There's not really that much you can do
with that.
But besides all that, we took our pieces and we moved forward.
That's what we usually do. You know, sometimes things work in the
right time, sometimes it doesn't.
But after the meeting took place, we -- immediately I contacted
the people from Falling Water, and I was very receptive to the
comments that they had, and especially Joanne Whorley, she was the
president for the association. We had a meeting, I believe, right
Page 99
February 22, 2005
downstairs in the hall, in the corridor.
I requested at that time for her and the colleague to see if we can
establish some kind of a special meeting with all of the board and all
the people involved in Falling Water, that way we can eliminate some
of these problems, that way when we come here today we have some
more clear view of what we needed to do.
I really appreciate Joanne to establish a meeting on such short
notice. Yet, she did had a meeting the following Monday on such a
short notice. We -- I accepted a meeting and I attended the meeting.
At the meeting I heard all the people, what they have, the
concern about they have. And with the concern they had, the main
concern was that they want to see a continuous wall the way we
originally started off with all the way to the end of the property. Well,
that was one of the concerns.
The next concern was the fact that they felt that a two-story
restaurant was too big right alongside of the property line, which
actually was about 60 feet away from the property line anyway. But,
again, I took the advice for what they felt was -- because I don't really
want to make any kind of hardship among myself and my neighbors,
okay.
All I want, to get this proj ect moving on, get done with, and get it
over, do it the right way that everybody can live with.
Also some of the concern that the people from Falling Water
were having, they -- I guess it's a legit concern. They were worried
about -- for the restaurant was so close to the wall, maybe they have a
smell or maybe what (sic).
And another main concern was that they want to have a wall, a
continuous wall, all the way along the property that was consistent
with the original plan that we had in place, and I agreed to most all of
them that they said, and then I said, the last thing is though, they were
concerned, they want to have some kind of a landscape in the front of
the wall, that actually it be consistent throughout the whole length of
Page 100
February 22, 2005
the wall, which I think is about 1,600 feet long, and also there's a
section of the wall that goes across the tennis court, and they wanted
some kind of consistency what we had.
And at that time I thanked them all for what they did for that, and
I went to work. I went to work, and immediately I contact my
engineer, Jeff Davidson, I say, we have concern from our neighbors.
Would you please try to schedule a meeting, that way we can alleviate
the problems.
The meeting was help pretty rapidly, and we come up with a
conclusion that we have -- I'm going to show you right now what we
-- the changes we have made.
You can see from the site plan there a two-story restaurant, which
is about 60 feet away from the wall, two-story, 17,000 square feet.
And as Kelly said before, that this shows that right into the lake we'll
plan on having a gazebo over there.
But the concern they had was somewhat that since it was too
close to the wall, it was two-story, the people from the condos across
the street were going to have to look at the condo -- the building of the
restaurant, so they were not pleased with that.
So what we did with that --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Am I to understand that what you're
showing us is what is not what is in our packet to be approved?
MR. CURIALE: Oh, no.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You know, I guess what I'd like to do is
get to the issue and leave off so much of what used to be proposed and
what you're proposing now.
MR. CURIALE: That's what I'm proposing now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can we deal with just that?
MR. CURIALE: That's what I'll do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. CURIALE: What we have done, we took the restaurant,
which is a two-story restaurant, on the corner, which was adjacent to
Page 101
February 22, 2005
the property line, 60 feet, we took that right out of place, and we
moved up in the front -- we've got about over 100 feet from the
property line to the retail building. That is no longer restaurant. It's
strictly a retail, 100 feet wide by 60 feet deep building.
The restaurant that we had before was 70,000 square feet. We
took that out immediately, and we put the restaurant, which is about
7,500 square feet, to the center of the two buildings, and actually goes
somewhat -- part of the restaurant goes into the lake.
But from the end of the restaurant to the wall, we have about 140
feet of setback. So we got more than enough serenity for the people of
Falling Water. They're never going to be able to see the restaurant
because it's single-story. It's not two-story anymore. And plus, they
ain't going to be able to hear any noise whatsoever.
As far as smell goes, we're way too far away to worry that -- for
any smell to come from the restaurant. I don't know what kind of
smell is going to be out of that. By making the restaurant smaller, we
utilize a different kind of environment, a different kind of food to be
served in there anyway.
But now I'd like to show you what we have in place here. After
having the meeting with the people from Falling Water, okay, I did
hire a landscape architect, and he immediately came over to the job
site. We went over to the job site, and we -- this is a section of wall,
around 350-feet section, okay.
And at that time we decided, he said, well, why don't you show
some vegetation what we trying to put on the wall, that way the people
from Falling Water, they see what they going to get.
This is what we come up with. They have some vegetation in the
middle, and as notice in here, we all saw there was a concern of the
people saying, well, how you going to finish the wall. Well, we going
to have a cap on top here, and then every so -- every so often on every
pillar we put a decorative ball up on top, and I feel that this should be
more than enough to satisfy that.
Page 102
February 22, 2005
I had a concern with them, said, well, if we put a landscaping
behind in here, who's going to maintain it? Well, the conclusion of the
meeting was that they request me to maintain the landscaping behind
the wall, but there was no way for me to get back behind the wall
because no exit from my side to that side, but they -- at that time of the
meeting, they assured me the fact that I can use their entrance in order
to bring my landscaping guy to go over there and maintain the shrubs
as they needed to be, okay?
Okay. This is the rendering right now that we chose what will be
-- if this plan is being approved by the board. We have the two
existing buildings that were in the original plan when we submitted
the application, okay. The change that we have made is this restaurant
here, which is -- blends right in the middle of the two openings, and
the retail space moves up forward toward the front of 41.
If you notice that, all the buildings all blend in, and the way it
blends in to the remaining shopping center, they all have the same
characteristic of architecture.
So at this time I think I said more than enough, and I would like
to see if you people have a question, but I would like to have an __
some kind of arrangement before any decision be made, give me a
chance to give any kind of response, if it's possible. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. We have two public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Two public speakers, okay.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll wait for those public speakers to
finish.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You've finished your presentation?
Okay. Bring up the public speakers, Ms. Filson.
MS. FILSON: The first public speaker is Tom McNutt.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, do you care to hear from your staff
first, or no?
Page 103
February 22, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I asked you if the presentation was
finished, okay?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Sorry. I thought you were speaking to the
applicant.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. DeRUNTZ: My name is Mike DeRuntz. I'm a principal
planning with the department of zoning and land development review.
This is a rezoning petition that's before you today that you're
going to be considering. This area is an activity center. It is adjoined
by a C-3 zoning classification, which is the CVS. Then there's the gap
with the archi -- or the agricultural and the C-2, then it goes into a C-5
land use area.
The -- as on the -- you can see the C-3, the ag., the C-2, and then
the C-5 in this area. This request, it is felt by the staff that it is
consistent with good planning practice for this activity center to have
this -- to entertain this zoning request.
A lot of discussion has been centered on the plan. This approval
does not approve the plan unless the commission incorporates that as
one of the stipulations in their approval. This petition is just for the
land use activity in that area.
The discussions with the wall, those are -- those are standard
requirements where you're having commercial adjoining a residential
area. Same thing with the landscaping, there are requirements that
they would have to meet those standard requirements for buffering in
this area.
The -- as was mentioned, the planning commission did move to
deny it based -- that it was not consistent with the growth management
plan.
The transportation staff did mention that it could be stipulated
that development would be, withheld approval on the SDP until such
time as that intersection met concurrency.
If there are any questions, I'll be more than happy to try to
Page 104
N.._.__.....___...,_.......
February 22,2005
address those.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any questions of staff?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one fast one. In the executive
summary here it said in the third paragraph under considerations, it
said three two-story structures have been identified, but it looks like
it's two three-story structures, right?
MR. DeRUNTZ: No. Yes, ma'am, it is now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. DeRUNTZ: The plan has changed since the executive
summary came through.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did you want to ask a question of staff?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll wait till we're done, then I'll --
yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Go ahead.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Tom McNutt. He will be followed by Frank
Ferraluolo. I'm sure I got that wrong.
MR. McNUTT: Thank you. I'm Tom McNutt, a resident of
Falling Waters on behalf of the homeowners. We appreciate the
opportunity to express our views.
The plans that have been submitted are probably consistent with
what's going on in the area, given the fact that development of that
kind of property is inevitable.
Our concerns, however, remain the same, and that's for the safety
and security of the residents on the other side of the property and the
obvious aesthetics and privacy of the homeowners.
If it's developed as it's presented, I think it would be acceptable to
most of the homeowners. Our problem is, there's an existing wall that's
never been completed, that hasn't been landscaped. I think that if it is
possible, that if the approval of the zoning could be conditioned and
the developer agree, that the wall would be completed and built prior
to the beginning of major construction on the property, that would
Page 105
February 22,2005
alleviate most of the concerns, because the residents are not going to
be exposed.
It doesn't clearly show it in these plans, but this proposed
development is just on the other side of a road that's used commonly
by most of the residents for biking, hiking, walking, kids use it to
Rollerblade, and it's going to be exposed during the construction
process, obviously, to the kind of equipment and noise and disruption
that goes along with a construction site.
So if the wall could be constructed and completed to isolate the
neighborhood from that prior to the commencement of the major
construction on the property, I think that everybody concerned would
be a whole lot happier with it.
Again, you know, the development's probably inevitable, and this
looks reasonably consistent with what's going on.
But, you know, we just -- our concern, our dilemma is that once
the zoning change is made, then obviously unless there's some
stipulation, there's no requirement that the developer stick to these
plans. It could be anything that meets the code and other requirements
of the county. And that, again, is our concern.
You know, if it's approved, then we're at the mercy of the
developer, so to speak, at that point in time, unless there's some prior
agreement.
So we would urge the council and the developer to stipulate to
the fact that the wall will be constructed and completed and
maintained and landscaped prior to the development of the property.
Appreciate your time. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Frank Ferraluolo.
MR. FERRALUOLO: My name is Frank Ferraluolo. I'm also a
resident of --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Excuse me, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You have to get up there.
Page 106
February 22, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have to get to the microphone so we
can get you on the record.
MR. FERRALUOLO: My name is Frank Ferraluolo. I'm also a
resident of Falling Waters Beach Resort. I have a few other concerns
that Tom didn't bring up, and I also reiterate that -- the one feeling that
all of us have at Falling Waters is that if we approve this zoning
change, that this developer could just then sell it with the new zone
and move on, because he thinks we're a little pesty, and we would be
the ones left holding the bag.
If you were to stipulate something like this with the wall, as Tom
said, being built prior to the problems -- because we lived through the
first part of the construction when that wasn't true -- and do it properly
and hold -- in the stipulation in writing that it be done that way, fine.
I have another objection to the restaurant, but I guess I don't
know if everybody feels that way or not. I know Falling Waters does.
I don't know why we have to have a restaurant there, because we will
smell it 100 feet away. I live about 100 feet from where the restaurant
is going to be, and I know I will smell it if I open my windows and
stuff like that.
But one of the other concerns I have is the traffic at 951 and 41.
There's been two deaths there within the last six months. You have at
least six lanes of traffic on 951, and I would say about nine lanes of
traffic of 41 coming eastbound.
There's two lanes where this property is. The speed limit is 60
miles per hour. There's going to be problems with -- if that property is
developed and used, retail, whatever they're going to use it for, if it's
fast density type stores and stuff like that where there's going to be a
lot of traffic, there's going to be problems in and out, even if you build
a side road, at 60 miles an hour.
Another concern that some of the residents have is that the light
poles be built in such a way that the light would reflect down. That
100 feet from us, if you put these high density lights up, it's going to
Page 107
February 22, 2005
shine into our windows and shine into everything else that we live
there for.
We have a beautiful community. We're very proud of it. We take
care of it.
And it also was noted, too, that that wall that's up there presently,
and it's been up about two years, and there has been no landscaping
done back there at all, so -- and I know when he came to our meeting,
he said, well, he wasn't really thrilled about doing it, and now he's
saying he's thrilled about doing it. I just want to hold him to that.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I have a number of questions.
First of all, I want to know how many homes are in Falling Waters in
that PUD. How many homes do we have in there?
MR. FERRALUOLO: Four hundred twenty-eight.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. In the plan right now it
doesn't call for any interconnectivity, and that's, I think, one of the
stipulations that we have with the activity center that there should be
some interconnectivity.
And I'm very concerned that, as was brought up, that somebody
gets this PUD approved and then turns around and flips it and comes
up with this big grandiose plan, but right now we don't even have
anything in regards to what's going to be done at u.S. 41 for at least
five years. In fact, it's not even on a radar screen.
So I can't even see why we're -- this is even coming before us,
because the road is failing now. We don't have anything from FDOT
in regards to what they're going to do with this thing. This gentleman
here is telling us that it's going to have a restaurant and all this other
stuff.
Is he going to wait five, six years or 10 years before he puts the
Page 108
February 22, 2005
restaurant in?
And I've got concerns about rezoning this, and then finding out
that we're going to be hoodwinked here.
MR. DeRUNTZ: I understand your concerns. The -- this is not a
PUD application, and they're not being considered --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They're getting it rezoned.
MR. DeRUNTZ: It is a rezoning, that's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And so he can turn around
and flip that property, and then they can go ahead and start building on
this thing; is that correct?
(Applause.)
MR. DeRUNTZ: That property could be sold, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then they could start
developing it, right? It may not be anything that this gentleman
brought forth today.
MR. DeRUNTZ: If the prop -- if it is stipulated that the
development would be restricted on this site until concurrency was
met, then that would go with the property.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I just have a hard time with
this when the road is failing. Maybe our transportation expert can give
us some direction on what's the foreseeable future for any
improvement out there.
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, transportation planning. 951 south of
41, the reason why we sent a -- saying it's not consistent is because we
hadn't solved that problem yet. We actually still don't have it all totally
solved. Wal-Mart's committed to it, but we don't have a developer's
contribution agreement that has been agreed to through the
commISSIon.
41 south right now has about 80 peak hour peak direction trips. It
remains to be seen as to when certain improvements are done.
Obviously FDOT with the PD&E study, south 41, we sped that up
with PD&E, but you are pointing to the fact that it could be five years
Page 109
February 22,2005
before construction is seen out on 41 south.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we can't meet concurrency.
We're failing at that point -- in that --
MR. SCOTT: At the particular moment, we can't meet
concurrency. When we do improvements to 951 south, we might be
for a window of opportunity.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Might be?
MR. SCOTT: And -- yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. SCOTT: And then obviously further on down the road when
some of the developments come forward, it win run --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got one last question. If they
come through with some kind of a proposal with what there's -- right
now with this rezone and with the concept idea, what do you think the
trips per day are going to be in and out of some kind of a center of this
nature, with what we know where the level of service is on U.S. 41?
MR. SCOTT: 41 to the east -- I mean, I don't know the trips
offhand.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I want to know what kind of
impact we're going to be looking at on U.S. 41. Ifwe rezoned this and
the individual goes through and tries to carry through with this plan,
what are we looking for as potential trip -- additional trips that are
presently going to be impacting U.S. 41?
MR. SCOTT: The impact from staffs standpoint was 951 to the
south. 41 was less of a concern because of where it's at and what the
trips are coming to and back to. 41 wasn't as much of a concern.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But you said in the staff report that
__ you said it should be denied because of the fact of the impact, traffic
impact; is that correct?
MR. SCOTT: For 951, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Don't go away.
Page 110
-~----~_.-< .
February 22, 2005
I'm next, right?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, you are, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So you recommendation
is for denial because of the impact of traffic?
MR. SCOTT: At the -- it wasn't consistent with 5.1 the way --
when looking at the fact that we didn't have 951 programmed south of
41.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now let me weight a
couple things out. Is there any way that this could be approved with
the contingency that it can only go online when we reach that
capacity?
MR. SCOTT: I didn't have a problem with the way staff had put
that. Fine, approve this, but if concurrency is not met at site
development plan, then it would be like everybody else, just waiting
for capacity.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is this somehow going to also
help when it is -- does go into place when they meet concurrency, that
it might reduce some traffic trips because of this being located where
it is?
MR. SCOTT: That was some of -- some of the benefit for, say,
some of the trips that go further away, yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Now, it was mentioned
earlier, too, about the interconnect. Isn't Falling Waters a gated
community?
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And they've got an entrance on
951, and I think they've got one at 41, too.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They're supposed to have one on
41.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Emergency exit only.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Only, okay. But if I remember
Page 111
February 22, 2005
correctly, the residents of Falling Waters see no benefit to this being
an interconnect and a second gate to be put in that particular location,
unless they expressed something different to staff. I don't -- in this
case, I don't see any reason for it.
I mean, if it was a community that was open to the public to go in
and come and go with, then it's got a tremendous benefit. But once it's
a gated community, it remains a gated community.
I don't know what the benefit would be to have a gate put there so
about 20, 30 residents at day at the very most might be able to take
advantage of it.
MR. SCOTT: Well --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm just -- and I don't think -- I
don't think that it's in their -- I don't think that they would be
supportive of it. In fact, I'm quite amazed that we got to this point with
as much support with all the problems we had earlier with the first
building, the fact that we seem to have come to some sort of
agreement within the community what they're looking for. Of course,
they've still got concerns.
But if we stay with the plan where it can't go in until we reach
concurrency, if we stay with the present plan as it is and been
approved by the residents of Falling Water to avoid interconnectivity
with a gate, which would only allow themselves to come and go, I am
concerned about the -- and possibly somebody from staff can tell me,
what is it about the first section of the wall that hasn't been completed
that the residents were referring to? I thought this was taken care of a
long time ago.
MR. DeRUNTZ: I know that they've -- the property owner's been
cited for the work not being completed, and it is his responsibility to
have that wall completed before they move forward. So, you know,
that is an outstanding issue there about the completion of the wall.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it's a pending issue for
residents there.
Page 112
February 22, 2005
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I mean, has the CO been granted
for that building yet with the wall not completed?
MR. DeRUNTZ: I think there's a -- I think--
MR. CURIALE: Can I clear some of the air here? The reason
why the wall has not been complete, because I got fined by the code
enforcement and they held my project for two years because I made an
illegal clearance of about 40 trees without getting a clearing permit,
and unfortunately the clearing permit cost me a ton of money and two
years in abandoned proj ect. I had a permit from the DOT, and I had no
idea that it was there. That's the reason why the wall has not got to the
point --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. The wall's not completed,
but do you have a CO for that building yet?
MR. CURIALE: We have a CO for the first building.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But the sec -- and the first
building's got the wall behind it that's not completed?
MR. CURIALE: Yes, it does.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I thought the CO wasn't going to
be granted until the wall was completed.
MR. CURIALE: No. The wall has been finished for first
building, and the second building is already -- but the wall has already
been -- the wall has been in there for about three years already.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Schmitt?
MR. CURIALE: But we are planning -- go ahead.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, administrator of
community development/environmental services division.
Commissioner, we've had about a two-year issue out there on this
property. There was -- there was an encroachment into the ST area.
There was a code enforcement case. There's been a subsequent fine
paid. That has been closed.
I did issue a temporary CO to the building, directed my building
Page 113
February 22, 2005
director to issue a temporary CO. There was a hold on the site, but I
lifted that so Mario could finish the project. I wanted to get the project
finished. I wanted to get the wall up there.
We're working with him trying to get him to finish the wall and
close out and complete that site, specifically what we call the 800
series inspections, which is all the site work. So that -- we're working
with him trying to get that project to completion.
He has another site, another site that's currently been rezoned for
additional work, and now this proj ect as well. Our interest is just to get
the whole area cleaned up out there --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree, I agree.
MR. SCHMITT: -- and basically bring this project to closure.
The -- but since I'm up here, and I just want to correct, Commissioner
Halas, there is an interconnect. We mandated an interconnect. There
will be an interconnect to the drugstore to the immediate west of this
proj ect that can be accessed through an interconnect between those
two sites.
So, again, staff has been working with Mario trying to -- he's
worked -- and he did work diligently to get the code case issue cleared
up. He paid a mitigation, off-site mitigation, which he met the
requirements for that, and we're trying to work with him.
I've got John DiMartino of my staff and others working with him
trying to bring the project to completion, at least the most easterly
portion of that project near Falling Waters.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may go back to -- Mario,
would you be agreeable to building the wall before you start
construction on the other parts of it? I mean, people don't like to look
at that --
MR. CURIALE: I agree with you. I'm ready to start the wall
immediately if I have the okay from the staff and from you guys that
you going to have to put the wall up.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you understand if you put
Page 114
February 22, 2005
the wall up, you still have to be -- you have to be under -- you have to
be able to meet the road requirements before you'll be able to build the
buildings.
MR. CURIALE: What road requirement?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That we are consistent with road.
The road is below failing. We're waiting for 951, I believe it is; 41 's
not a question. But staff had a -- transportation had an issue with the
road.
MR. CURIALE: Well, I think -- I think the TIS here is somewhat
misconceptual (sic). Somebody made a big mistake in here, because
there are two reasons here. If you see my project I present in front of
you, okay, the two office building, what kind of traffic are we going to
generate out of the office building?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know, that's your opinion, sir,
but I want my staff to answer that question again, because obviously
we've got a difference of opinion here.
Mr. Scott?
One more time, let's go through this about sufficient road
capacity .
MR. SCOTT: At the moment --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Staffs recommendation.
MR. SCOTT: At the moment staff would say that it's not meeting
concurrency. We will come back with 951 with, through Wal-Mart, to
see -- for the improvements. That will add some capacity to it. But,
you know, trip distribution one way or the other, we still have a
problem on 951.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then we're not wrong to ask for
this --
MR. SCOTT: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- to be done first before he can
break ground?
MR. SCOTT: No, I think -- I think it's fair for both parties,
Page 115
-----
....~~_...._w.".··_ . _"_"_.."",,,~~_.,~-,.,.
February 22, 2005
essentially,
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, okay, fine, then I did
understand that correctly.
I've got just a couple more. Please bear with me. This is my
district.
Is there any right-of-way with this property that should be -- the
county's going to need for any reason?
MR. SCOTT: U.S. 41 and at 951 we have the right-of-way that
we need for at least the widening to six lanes, 200 feet on U.S. 41, 951
now. I don't want to presume what the future will look like when
PD&E study's done. But at least for the conditions that we know right
now, we have the right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I mean, you can't identify
right away what we need that couldn't be offered up before we start
this whole thing and have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for
a couple square feet of property later from -- I'm talking about Mario's
property right now.
MR. SCOTT: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Are we all set as far as that
right-of-way we need for the improvements, or are we going to have
to come back and pay him for some right of way?
MR. SCOTT: For the six-laning of both of those roadways, no,
we don't need to. Now, what I don't know is, is this going to be a
fly-over in the future or something like that as part of the PD&E
study.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Staff, is there any
provisions within this for shielding the lights to keep them from
shining into the residential area?
MR. DeRUNTZ: It is a requirement that the lighting is held to 25
foot in height -- that's an LDC requirement -- and that the light shall
be contained on the property. That's a standard requirement. We could
put that verbiage in there as a stipulation for assurances, but it is a
Page 116
_,_.._~'_M>
February 22, 2005
requirement now within the LDC.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. I truly am concerned
about the transportation element in this particular -- in all PUDs or any
rezones. And I notice transportation, plus planning commission, both
recommended denial.
Can you tell me, please, what type of figures were used as you
went into this to decide that there isn't enough capacity on the road?
MR. SCOTT: Based on the trip generation that was produced by
their project and the fact that we, at the moment, with vested
development, are negative on 951 south of 41.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And when you say vested
development, did you -- did you use the entire number of dwelling
units already approved, or did you use a portion of them?
MR. SCOTT: It's a portion of it, like a portion of Fiddler's Creek,
portion of Lely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh. So actually, as they're built
out, and if you took that whole figure to use rather than just a portion,
we definitely know that that road is broken; is that correct?
MR. SCOTT: Or more so the intersection in the future.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I'm just terribly concerned
about impacting that intersection any more. I wait in that a lot, and I
see how dangerous it can be for the people that are already on there,
and I'm really happy to see that you -- that you recommended denial
because of 5.1. I think that's an important thing for us to consider.
I would like to know -- and you might not have them here today
__ but what the total number of figures are of dwelling units that are --
that are already approved and are being built right now for that area,
because I think that gives us a better picture of what we're dealing
with, not only there, but on U.S. 41 it narrows to two lanes, and we've
just finally gotten approval from the DOT, FDOT rather, to take a
Page 11 7
....-
February 22,2005
look at it. We all know it doesn't even work anymore with all the units
that are coming onboard. And we have no idea when and if the FDOT
will actually fund the widening.
So I'd love to have those figures in that surrounding area.
MR. SCOTT: Well, and that's one of the reasons why we've
talked about having a north! south road east of 951 to address some of
the future, particularly further out east, development that's planned,
like Fiddler's Creek.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This property does abut up on 41; is
that correct?
MR. SCOTT: Yes, it does.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So if 41 's failing and we don't have
anything to -- any way to address that since that's an FDOT highway,
we're really between a rock and a hard place; is that correct?
MR. SCOTT: Yeah, but it's not failing at the moment. Now
projected --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But said just if we --
MR. MUDD: He said 951 is failing.
MR. SCOTT: 951.
MR. MUDD: 951 is failing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what about -- what about U.S.
41 where this property's going to be?
MR. SCOTT: We've got 80 peak hour peak direction trips
available as we speak right now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And does that include all of the -- all
of the already approved PUDs in that area?
MR. SCOTT: No, a portion of it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not a portion of it. I mean all of
them.
MR. SCOTT: It only is a portion of them.
Page 118
~~-
February 22, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One-seventh?
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's only 13 percent that's figured
in there.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We've got an Eckerd's in there
that's not even open.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sir, we've had public comment. Thank
you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion for denial.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I need to close the public hearing.
There is a motion for denial by Commissioner Halas, a second by
Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. We've got a case here
where we're really put into a -- between a rock and a hard place, and I
know that Mario has really got himself out here on a limb on this one.
But with that all said, we've got to be honest with ourselves. When we
run into a situation like this, we have to address the situation.
I do want to compliment Mario on that fact that he did turn this
around from an adversarial position that Waterways (sic) was taking to
a point where he had a number of the residents agreeing with him.
I'm sure that at some point in the future that if we meet
concurrency for that area, this will be something that will be able to be
given more consideration.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any other discussion?
MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. WHITE: I regret to advise you that we're going to need
some specificity with respect to the reasons and the rationale for
denial, and I'd ask that one or more of the commissioners as
Page 119
.--
February 22, 2005
appropriate, before the motion be considered, put those on the record.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because of staff recommendations
on 5.1.
MR. WHITE: Would that be fair to say that it was inconsistent
with 5.1 for the reasons stated by Collier DOT?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And trying to make sure that we
have concurrency on the roads in that particular area.
MR. WHITE: Well, I think that was a potentially agreed upon
stipulation. And I don't want to quibble about the rationale, but I think
that the consistency or inconsistency with 5.1 would be the kind of
detail we're looking for. The concurrency is something they would
have had to otherwise meet as part of the applicable law.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, it's pretty -- it's staffs report
is that transportation department pretty -- made it pretty clear in the
information that was given to my agenda, that they recommended
denial because of the fact of the impact that's in that particular area.
MR. WHITE: And I agree with you, Commissioner. I think that
that's a viable rationale. I just don't believe that you could say that
they wouldn't be meeting the law at some point in time later when
they would absolutely have to meet the law.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So are you saying then if we just
said it's inconsistent --
MR. WHITE: With 5.1, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- with 5.1 and we put that into the
motion, is that what you're looking for?
MR. WHITE: And I would specifically suggest that it were not
any specific mitigating stipulations that could be approved to make it
consistent.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That's in my motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you repeat that last statement?
Page 120
February 22, 2005
MR. WHITE: The initial rationale that was stated was that it
would be inconsistent with policy 5.1.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
MR. WHITE: Policy 5.1 has a provision in it that says, unless
specific mitigating stipulations are approved. And what I'm asking the
board is it their finding and analysis and conclusion that, in fact, there
would be no mitigating stipulation that's been discussed today that
would allow it to be found consistent with 5.1.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, because there isn't really any
mitigating stipulations.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Other than the--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Than the delay. I think what the attorney
is talking about is that there is a stipulation that says, you can't do
anything here until it is consistent, until adequate traffic capacity does
exist.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then I think that that should give
the petitioner --
MR. WHITE: That's a concurrency issue.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- the opportunity to come back
here.
MR. WHITE: And what you're talking about now is a
consistency issue with your comprehensive plan.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This problem is complicated by the fact
that the staff didn't recommend disapproval. Actually the staff has
recommended approval.
MR. WHITE: Your overall staff recommendation is one of
approval.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is approval. What happened was that the
planning commission denied it based upon 5.1.
MR. WHITE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And they did not feel that the staffs
Page 121
",. ........------""~......_-^
February 22, 2005
suggestion to mitigate that was acceptable.
MR. WHITE: And I'm asking this board to effectively affirm and
state that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The findings of the planning commission
in that respect.
MR. WHITE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I think that's where you're really
going on this.
MR. WHITE: Absolutely, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I add something to that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure. Well, you can ask a question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'll ask a question. If they do
prepare some type of a mitigation plan, I would like to see it use true
actual total figures rather than 13 percent, rather than a portion. I don't
think that gives us up here a proper picture. It makes it very difficult
for us to look at something like that, not knowing what the figures
actually are that are already approved.
MR. WHITE: I believe that that may be something that's
appropriate to address with your staff at the upcoming concurrency
workshop, and I don't know that it's a -- required as a specific finding
in this instance in order to support the denial.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think -- if I could comment on that, I
think it would require us to change our procedures to --
MR. WHITE: Agree.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- apply that kind of logic. And the
problem we have is we must deal with the procedures we have on the
books right now.
But it appears to me that the planning commission has looked at
this very thoroughly and they have recommend that it be denied for
this reason, inconsistency with policy 5.1.
It appears that if we support the planning commission's decision,
Page 122
February 22, 2005
the recommendation for denial, and consider that their logic prevails
in this case, then that's all we need to do.
MR. WHITE: If there are any -- yes. If there are other additional
reasons that one or more of the commissioners may want to put on the
floor for consideration as other rationales for the denial, I'd ask that
they be brought forward as well with some degree of specificity.
MS. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, the -- after speaking with my client,
we would like to withdraw this petition so that we can bring it back
with some mitigation. Having heard some of the board's concerns,
we'd like to come back at a later time.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, as a point of order, if I may. You'd
have to re-open the public hearing to consider that withdrawal, and
that's at the board's discretion. You're on a discussion of a motion at
this time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. We do have a motion on the floor.
Commissioner Coletta, is there something you want to say?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know we're not probably
supposed to consider what we just heard because it was spoken out of
context with the rest of the meeting, but I know that the petitioner has
borne quite an expense. I couldn't agree for him to be able to go
forward at this point in time, you know, with the uncertainty of the
road. But if he could put this on the shelf to bring back later when we
address this concern, I'm all for that.
Would it be appropriate to ask for a motion to re-open the public
portion of the hearing?
MR. WHITE: I think that would be the case, either that or--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We've got a motion on the floor.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. The motion would have to be
withdrawn, wouldn't it?
MR. WHITE: Yes. The motion maker would have to at least
withdraw the present motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So I will ask that question. Commissioner
Page 123
February 22, 2005
Halas, would you want to withdraw your motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: For the moment?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: For the moment only. I think we
ought to just go through with it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: With the motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: With the motion.
MR. WHITE: Well, Mr. Chairman, if I may. And this isn't legal
advice as much as it is counsel. The idea is that if you have a potential
withdrawal that would allow this to not have to be moved to the point
of denial, then there is no opportunity for the petitioners at any point
in time to challenge the denial; therefore, there wouldn't be any
necessity of subsequent litigation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll withdraw my motion then.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then the motion is--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have no motion to second, then I'll
withdraw my second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I guess that's pretty much where it is.
Okay. Now, is there a motion to re-open the public hearing?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta's made a motion to
re-open the public hearing.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Henning.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
Page 124
---
February 22, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The public hearing is open. Now
you wanted to say something to us.
MS. SMITH: Yes. Mr. Chairman, we'd like to withdraw this--
sorry. My name's Kelly Smith with Davidson Engineering. We'd like
to withdraw this rezone request so that we can come back at a later
time with some transportation mitigation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make -- I'll make a motion
that we allow them to withdraw it and bring it back at a future time for
consideration.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Coletta
to approve withdrawal of the motion, withdrawal of the petition.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Henning.
Is there any discussion?
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In regards to coming back at a later
date, what are you -- what are you contemplating for bringing back at
later date? Are we looking at some time down the road, a couple years
from now until we find out what's going to happen, that intersection of
951 and u.S. 41?
MR. CURIALE: This project has been going on for a long time,
and this time we're going to try to finish this project or abandon the
whole thing, because it's not feasible. It's very expensive to get a
project like this unfinished, half done, half undone.
I try to satisfy the people as much as I possibly can. They want
everything be taken care of. I went back -- my back both ways to try
to help out.
I mean, we reach a stumbling wall here. I'm not trying to do
anything different in here. I'm trying to bring something that Mr.
Coy Ie, Chairman, has been preaching for the past four years, to bring
the high-paying jobs to the area. That's exactly what I'm trying to do.
Page 125
^.-----
February 22, 2005
I'm trying to bring office area to bring people that makes decent
money to the quadrant. I'm trying to bring something really nice to a
nice area which is a quadrant where people will really be happy about
it.
Now, as far as the traffic goes. I have a problem with that. And if
I can reply to that, okay?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's our problem.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's not the issue at the present --
excuse me. But Commissioner Halas just asked you a question. When
do you think you'll bring it back?
MR. CURIALE: Well, at this point in time it's very hard for me
__ first of all, I don't even know how we leave this area here. Am I
going to finish the wall for these people from (sic) my neighbor or
not? Or I'm going to put everything on the back burner and then find
out, stop everything the way we do and then we come up with the
conclusion? I don't know really what the time frame will be right now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, sir. You want to hold
up for negotiation the finishing of the wall you originally planned to
do, whether what happens here?
MR. CURIALE: No, I'm not in negotiation whatsoever. I want to
try to get these done and get it over with. That's what I'm trying to do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The question's very simple. You
probably don't even have an answer. But by putting it on the shelf,
everybody can explore the possibility of what's going to be done next,
and at that point in time you get to bring it back.
I'm not too sure I'd know the answer to the question either, other
than reconfirm where we're going with this.
MR. CURIALE: Well, we've got to have an engineer to figure
out what do they need to be doing in there. I really don't know what
the time frame will be.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to move on, but I just
Page 126
February 22, 2005
want to remind the board on March 27th, 2002, the petitioner came
before the board on another proj ect across the street concerned about
traffic in the area. So I'm sure that he can understand the board's
concern, and hopefully he'll work out some kind of mitigation for the
future.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We still need to vote on this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know if you still have the
public meeting open or not, but if you -- I can still speak on this. And
what I wanted to say was, I believe that wall was part of the agreement
for the property that he's now building on, and I don't think we have
anything to say about that. That was a commitment on his part, and he
must finish that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm going to close the public
hearing. We have a motion on the floor to request that this item be
withdrawn.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous.
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2005-10: PETITION PUDZA-2003-AR-5168
BRENTWOOD LAND PARTNERS, LLC., REPRESENTED BY D.
WAYNE ARNOLD OF Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P .A.,
Page 127
~-'..~-
February 22,2005
REQUESTING A REZONING FROM "A" RURAL
AGRICUL TURAL AND "PUD" PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT TO A NEW PUD TO BE
KNOWN AS MALIBU LAKES PUD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD, ADJACENT TO
AND EAST OF THE INTERSTATE 75 RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND
WEST OF TARPON BAY BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 30,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to item 8B. This
item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure
be provided by commission members.
It's Brentwood Land Partners, LLC, represented by D. Wayne
Arnold ofQ. Grady Minor and Associated (sic), P.A., requesting a
rezoning from "A" rural agricultural and PU -- I'm going -- I'm going
to stand corrected on the -- it's the same item. I just want to give you
the corrected version that I read in this morning.
The title should read, petition PUDZA-2003-AR-5168,
Brentwood Land Partners, LLC, represented by D. Wayne Arnold of
Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., requesting a rezone from "A"
rural agricultural and PUD planned unit development zoning district to
a new PUD to be known as Malibu Lakes PUD for property located at
the south side of Immokalee Road, adjacent to the east of Interstate 75
right-of-way and west of Tarpon Bay Boulevard in section 30,
Township 48 south, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida. This
property consists of 175.67 plus acres.
And again, the item requires that all participants be sworn in and
ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Would you swear everybody in,
please.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
Page 128
.-..---
February 22, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioners, do you have any
ex parte disclosure; Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I do. On this particular one,
I've had meetings with the petitioner, I've had correspondence from
homeowner associations in regards to this, and I think there's also been
some e-mails also, and it's all here if the public would like to look at
the ex parte.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I have had a number of
meetings with the petitioner, I have had phone calls, e-mails, and my
file remains available for anyone that wishes to see it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I have had meetings with the
petitioner, correspondence from constituents, and e-mails concerning
this issue. It's all in my public file.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I, too, have had meetings with
the petitioner, I've received correspondence and e-mails, and I've also
talked with staff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Way too much correspondence,
ex parte on this one. In addition to what's in my file, I met with an
interested citizen group in North Naples on this issue, the Oaks
Advisory Board had a meeting when the petitioner was present, and
also Tarpon Bay had a meeting when the petitioner was present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Okay. Are we going to have staff presentation first or is the
petitioner going to do this?
MR. MUDD: Petitioner's first, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich
Yovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. Excuse me. With me today are
Page 129
February 22, 2005
Paul Kite and Eric Strickland with Kite Development, the developers
of the property , Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor and Associates, the
planners and engineers for the proj ect and Reed Jarvi with Vaness and
Daylor, the transportation consultant on this project.
The property is located on the southeast quadrant of 1-75 and
Immokalee Road. It's within an interchange activity center. The
property is currently zoned Crestwood PUD, Malibu Lakes PUD, and
the Brentwood PUD, and there's approximately two acres to the west
of the Crestwood PUD that is zoned agricultural.
What you have before you is really the combination of the
Brentwood PUD, the Crestwood PUD, and the two acres of
agricultural land being incorporated into the Malibu Lakes PUD so
that we can have one unified commercial development instead of three
separate commercial developments.
The residential portion of the Malibu Lakes PUD is currently
developed with the Malibu Lakes Apartments and the Tarpon Bay
proj ect constructed by W CI.
The maximum requested commercial square footage is 330,000
square feet. This is a reduction from the current authorized square
footage of approximately 456,000 square feet, according to your staff
report.
In addition, the Crestwood PUD would allow a hotel and
self-storage. Those uses are being deleted from the request.
As I said, the amendment would allow a unified project instead
of three separate commercial developments. The primary user, I think
everybody knows, would be a Super Target with some other inline
stores and some outparcels along with the project.
As Commissioner Henning has mentioned, we've had several
meetings with the effect -- the associations in the area to address their
concerns. I think it's fair to say that their concerns were -- and I think
in order of importance -- I know traffic was the number one concern, I
think they were concerned about the landscaping and the buffering we
Page 130
.-....-...---
February 22, 2005
were going to incorporate into our proj ect, and they were concerned
about the types of tenants.
I believe we've addressed all of their concerns by agreeing to
enhance our landscaping and agreeing to help maintain landscaping in
the roadway.
We also met their concerns by recording an operation and
easement agreement on our property which would limit the types of
tenants we can have on the property.
And although I don't think we've addressed 100 percent their
traffic concerns, I know that we have gone a long way to helping
resolve a traffic issue that's on Immokalee Road. So I would say that
traffic's the issue for today's discussion.
We believe that our project actually enhances the traffic situation
for a couple of different reasons. The first is, we have existing PUD
zoning in the area for approximately 456,000 square feet, as I
mentioned. We are reducing what already exists by 126,000 square
feet because we think it's best for us and we think it's best for the
community that we do a unified commercial development versus three
separate developments that would not necessarily be tied in with a
unified architectural theme.
And most importantly, we have agreed to set aside an area of the
project, and I'll ask if -- can you put this up. That's just the commercial
portion of the PUD. Further south is the residential portion.
But what you can see is we have committed approximately two
acres of our property to go towards the construction of a northbound
on-ramp onto 1-75.
Presently there are two left-hand turn lanes to go north on 1-75.
Without this on-ramp, it won't be possible to fit the necessary through
lanes under the bridge in that area to ultimately bring Immokalee Road
to a six-lane facility.
We have committed -- and it will require that we revise the PUD.
We have committed that that land will be a donation versus the
Page 131
,..---..---
February 22, 2005
requirement that the county pay for that.
That's approximately $2 million worth of land that we're willing
to commit to help with the traffic situation in the area.
Without us, the situation will take longer to fix. My
understanding is that FDOT, until we agreed to provide the land to the
county, was not looking to do a ramp for several years.
With our agreement to donate the land, FDOT has found some
money to go towards the construction of an on-ramp, and we have
agreed to front $2.2 million worth of impact fees that should get the
county to the necessary funds to construct the on-ramp and help solve
the traffic issue in the area.
So we believe that our project with the reduction of
approximately 120,000 square feet of commercial retail as well as the
commitments we've made in the PUD document towards improving
the Immokalee Road situation is a win-win for the county and the
residents in the area.
Without approval, quite candidly, what we'll have to do is we'll
have to take our existing zoning, we'll have to go forward with our
plans, which would mean we would not build a Super Target and we
would build a regular sized Target, and next door to that we would
build a grocery store, the same types of things you would have in a
Super Target, they'd be separate projects. We'd have to move forward
with that project if this zoning is not approved, and we'd have to keep
__ or we would keep the existing intensity that we have in place.
We don't think that's a win for us and we don't think that's a win
for the community. We think that what we're proposing is the winner
for everybody involved. I think we've addressed all the concerns I've
said except for the issue of the neighbors would like us to wait until
Immokalee Road is completed, but honestly, we can't agree to give up
land, pay all our money, and not be allowed to go forward with the
proj ect until the roadway improvements are constructed.
So we think -- we've gone out and we've met 90 percent of the
Page 132
-_.~~._-
February 22, 2005
neighborhood's concerns. And with that, I'll end my presentation. And
Reed Jarvi is here to answer any questions you have regarding traffic
issues, Wayne's here to answer any planning questions you may have,
and we're available to answer any questions you may have now, or if
you want to wait for public input, we'd be happy to respond to any
comments from the public.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have two public speakers.
Commissioner Halas, you want to hold your comments until that
time?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does staff have a presentation?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. The planning commission did review
this request and then is recommending approval.
They were very pleased with the way the applicant was trying to
work with the neighbors in addressing their concerns. They felt that--
they wished that more applicants did as much background work to --
before they brought this before the board.
This is in interchange activity center four, and as such, this is a
prime location for commercial activities.
It was mentioned about the reduction in the already-approved
allowable square footage in the three PUDs that exist, and other --
there is sufficient open space on this project with this amendment, and
we would be looking at this revision of the PUD. If this was approved
for the donation land, we do have a master plan that does show that a
tentative site, which this -- the plan that is shown on the visualizer is
just a portion of.
So with that, if there's any questions, I will be more than happy to
address those later.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Could we call the first public --
MS. FILSON: We only have one speaker, Mr. Chairman. Karl
Fry.
Page 133
...-...-
February 22, 2005
MR. FRY: Good afternoon, Chairman Coyle and members of the
Board of County Commissioners. My name is Karl Fry. I have just
recently stepped down as president of the Oakes Estates Advisory.
The graphic on the visualizer doesn't fully show the entire area.
But Oakes Estates is 500 estate-sized lots. Oakes Boulevard is the
spine road that travels through the center of our neighborhood.
This shopping center is on the corner of Tarpon Bay Boulevard,
which runs due south, and then curves across and joins Oakes
Boulevard. So, in effect, the corridor of Oakes Boulevard combined
with Spanish Oaks and Tarpon Bay Boulevard becomes a secondary
entrance to this shopping center.
I'm in a bit of a dubious position. We've been negotiating with
the developers for about nine months on this. I have to say they have
made extensive efforts to, first of all, collect our input, listen to our
input, and attempt, to the extent possible under their control, to
address our input as well.
I'd like to put -- I have a document here that has been signed by
Paul Kite that I'd like to enter into the record. I'd like to put it up on
the visualizer, if I can.
MR. yaV ANOVICH: We'll give them copies.
MR. FRY: Oh, you gave them copies?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We will.
MR. MUDD: Which part do you want to get at?
MR. FRY: The paragraph number one, please. Thanks, Rich.
When I say I'm in a dubious position, I mean that we're standing
here, and I represent today not only Oakes Estates, but Susan Baker is
here from the Tarpon Bay Homeowners' Association. Cliff Meehan, as
the president, couldn't be here, asked me to speak on behalf of both
neighborhoods.
During our negotiations, Tarpon Bay and Oakes Estates realized
that we're joined together at the hip because Tarpon Bay and Oakes
forms that secondary entrance to the shopping center. So any traffic
Page 134
..>.._---~
February 22, 2005
that they get, we also get.
So what you are looking at is the very first page of a four-page
commitment letter that addresses our 15 statement position paper that
we supplied to the developers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could I ask you a question?
MR. FRY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is the same document which is
referred to in the planning commission's approval, recommendation
for approval, which is Exhibit 5 of their list of recommendations and
the response from Kite Development; is that correct?
MR. FRY: It is not the exact same document. This is a signed
commitment letter version of that document, which was their
responses to our position paper in an unsigned format. So it is the
same information.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But it is the same information. Nothing
new is being introduced here?
MR. FRY: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Both sides agree with that. Okay, good,
good.
MR. FRY: That's correct. So --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we have that in our packet.
MR. FRY: Great. I guess we did a -- during our annual meeting
several weeks ago, we did a straw vote of our neighbors, and we had
over 50 residents in attendance. We asked them, if, number one, which
is our request that this shopping center open after Immokalee is
six-laned out to 951, if we were not able to get that and the shopping
center was to be opened beforehand, would we be opposed or would
we still be supportive of a shopping center?
So whether it makes sense or not, I can tell you that our
neighbors think the traffic is so bad on Immokalee that they would
say, we oppose it if you can't finish Immokalee before they -- before
they open their shopping center, okay. I have to state that for the
Page 135
February 22, 2005
record.
I don't know that I would ask anything more of the developers
than they have offered, but I can tell you this. If any of you have been
on Immokalee Road, 1-75 north of there, Vanderbilt Beach Road,
which is on our southern border, it is gridlock. And it's not only
gridlock at rush hour, it's gridlock almost any time of the day.
So when we hear about a shopping center which has some
valuable services for our neighborhood, but a shopping center that's
going to add thousands of trips a day to a road that we know we can't
get in or out of our neighborhood on a timely basis, it's a little bit
shocking to be standing here in conditional support of this shopping
center.
I do have to admit Eric Strickland from the developer has been
fantastic to work with. I do believe they have addressed almost all of
the concerns that we had.
So in effect, I'm here to say, I think the developers have done
what they can. My main request today on behalf of my neighbors is of
you commissioners, it's that part of the picture they've handled. The
rest of the picture we are asking you to please accept responsibility
for, and that is, to expedite the six-laning of Immokalee Road to the
fastest extent possible.
Russell Budd from the planning commission put it like this. I
thought he summed it up pretty well. We're talking about short-term
period of pain, one to two years during this checkbook concurrency
period where they're open but the road is not six -laned, in order to
solve a long-term problem, which is that they are donating land that
you need for the cloverleaf to open up six lanes underneath the
highway.
Sounds like a Catch 22 to me. I can't speak for the voracity of
those -- of those points. But if that's the case, we ask that you
minimize that pain for our neighborhood by expediting that, as well as
the cloverleaf as well.
Page 136
--
February 22,2005
I guess one of the questions we asked of the planning
commission, we would certainly like to have an update if there is one
today, is to the timing that we're looking at for the cloverleaf,
beginning the cloverleaf project, and the six-laning of Immokalee
road. Okay?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MR. FRY: May I -- I wasn't quite done, are you -_
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, okay. Can you wrap it up?
MR. FRY: I can. Item number six, I'd just like to state that the
developer was not able to commit to restrict truck traffic from Oakes
Boulevard but have -- verbally agree that they will pass that restriction
on to all of their tenants and we can contact them and try to effect that.
So I'm just trying to cover everything that's important to my
neighborhood here very briefly.
Finally, our goal as a neighborhood, which we ask your support
for again, is to reclassify Oakes Boulevard. This is the reason that our
association or advisory board was fonned, so I'm asking for your help
today on the record.
We are told that after this -- after Livingston and Logan go
through, our traffic should drop by over half on the road, and that the
Target Shopping Center will only add about 1,200 trips a day to that,
leaving the net still under 50 percent of what it is today.
We believe that if you approve this project based on those traffic
figures, we'd like you also -- we'd like to begin the process to
reclassify Oakes from a collector road to a residential road, reduce the
speed limit to 35 miles per hour and institute some traffic calming.
This is not a through road. This is a road that runs from Vanderbilt
Beach to Immokalee Road only, and we believe that Livingston and
Logan should be the ones the carry the brunt of the north/south traffic.
So, in closing, I'm asking you to -- not to approve this project if
you think that it's detrimental to our ultimate cause, which is to take
this isolated neighborhood and keep it residential and quiet andd
Page 137
February 22, 2005
maintain the nature that it had many years ago.
That's all I have. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
That was the last public speaker?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Scott, you had something you
wanted to say?
MR. SCOTT: Yeah, a couple of things, thank you. Don Scott,
transportation planning.
Some of the items that the Oakes have raised are concerns for us
to end up in the PUD because they don't have any -- or the developer
doesn't have any control over that, like taking the road from a
collector down to the local requires a growth management plan
change. Also the issue of retaining the light out at Immokalee and
Oakes is -- you know, essentially the board controls that.
Also on number 12, the developer will provide 5,000 towards the
installation of a crossbar. We'd rather it say the developer will do that
improvement because we believe it will be much more than $5,000
and we don't want to box ourselves in and not have enough money for
that.
In addition, one of the things that was raised is the timing. We
have -- when this first went forward, we said, what kind of solution
can we come up with, and it was the loop. When we first started this
whole language -- and you can read some of the old language, it says,
set aside and all that. We have actually moved this with FDOT very
fast forward in the sense that they're going to give us the money by the
end of the year to do the improvement.
We're doing a design build for Immokalee from 951 to 1-75
which, based on advertisement, everything else, the design build could
start by the end of this year. Ifwe have available right-of-way, which
we do for the six-laning, we could theoretically start construction by
the end of year. That moves this project along very fast.
Page 138
~"---"-;~,-=,..,._,.~
February 22, 2005
The loop's probably going to take a little bit longer, but we're
looking at completing this within the next two years. So this is -- it's a
good improvement from a transportation aspect. It more than offsets
the trips that they're putting on the system.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Petitioner?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think Mr. Scott summed it up well. We
are a part of the solution to a problem that currently exists. We're
consistent with the concurrency management system. We could go
forward today under the existing zoning, so there will be a shopping
center. Either under the new plan or under the old plan, there's going
to be a shopping center.
The question is, does the loop get done quicker under the new
PUD with less intensity versus the old PUD with greater intensity.
And clearly, the loop gets done quicker under the new PUD.
So we believe we are, you know, part of the solution to an issue
out there, and we request that you follow the planning commission's
recommendation to approve the project. And we don't have a problem
with what Mr. Scott said regarding item number 12, that we construct
those improvements versus making a donation.
And with that, we're available to answer any questions you have
regarding the project.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is for Don Scott, transportation
department.
The -- I've got a couple of questions. One is, I believe in the
material that was presented to us the petitioner was going to basically
set aside two acres of his property that was going to include the loop,
okay. Is that going to be enough property compared with the
right-of-way property that we presently have out there at 1-75?
MR. SCOTT: What's been provided to them from FDOT. We
have -- let me show that up here. This is the latest concept. The loop's
a little smaller than what FDOT wants, but -- and that's why we are --
Page 139
February 22, 2005
when you look at it, you see that it goes over the interstate to try to get
the vehicles up to speed.
So they're working with us where the -- FHW A. FHW A has to
have final approval on this. Weare working with the developer to
address some of their stormwater needs, some other issues as part of
what we're -- you know, our impact to them. And the -- what they are
providing will get this built.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So is this going to -- is the
loop then -- you just said that this loop won't be up to standards, that
FDOT --
MR. SCOTT: They like a higher speed loop. That's why when
you look at it here --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thirty mile an hour radius?
MR. SCOTT: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So have we -- do we have enough
land -- with the two acres that they're going to propose to us, is that
going to be enough to address the concerns and issues of this loop and
the road that exits off of 1-7 5? It looks like you've got about four lanes
of traffic.
MR. SCOTT: If you look at the loop, how they address the loop
and the lower design speed is we do a bridge over Immokalee and you
don't bring it back to 1-75 till you're about 1,300 feet up the road, so
essentially those vehicles can come up to speed with the travel.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. SCOTT: So that's how we're mitigating towards the small
loop.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then to answer the second part of
the question, we're going to have enough room to still have egress off
of 1- 7 5, which looks to me like four lanes, you're going to have two
lanes going to the east and then two lanes going in the westerly
direction; is that correct?
MR. SCOTT: That's correct.
Page 140
,.-."~-_.-.,.._,._--,".
February 22, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And what's your best guess
as far as the completion of this loop?
MR. SCOTT: Starting by the end of the year, within two years
then.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Within two years. So we're look at
the end of 2007?
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Wow.
MR. SCOTT: Now, I put a qualification on that. This is a design
build. We haven't done a lot of design builds. Hopefully this goes, you
know, well, but that's what the plan is.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And then from the petitioner,
what's your best guess at when this store is going to open, with the
idea that we're looking at the two acres here that you're going to
donate to this proj ect?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We expect to open for business March of
'06.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could you -- could you waylay that
till the end of April of'06, which would be about a month? What I'm
looking at is, I'm trying to -- since we've got a two-year build on this
loop -- I know a month doesn't sound bad, but it would be the end of
the tourist season so we don't have one big tourist season where we
really have to put up with a lot of congestion.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I've been told that we can agree to that
commitment.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That sounds great.
I don't have any other questions on this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that's a great compromise,
Commissioner Halas, to get us out of tourist season.
You know, originally I wasn't for this amendment at all until I
come to realize that this project is part of our transportation solutions.
Page 141
February 22, 2005
Without the property, we're not going to have any solutions because
six-laning Immokalee is really not going to solve the solution up there.
You can't get six lanes under the bridge, 1-75 bridge, so removing
those turn lanes and using the ramp concept will have enough lanes
underneath, and besides, you lose one signal, traffic signal there, so it
should shorten the burden.
I'm going to make a motion for approval. And we want to make
sure this is correct, because I didn't see where the developer has
agreed to give us the land. What I see is that you're going to hold it in
reservation, so I would like a commitment that you're going to donate
it to --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I did, and I said at the beginning, I said,
we're going to have to revise the 1-75 ramp language to have it be a
donation to the county versus a reservation. So we will make that
revision to the document to make it clear.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, is that -- that agreement is
going to be significant right-of-way for the ramp?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have the -- we have actually set aside
an area in which these improvements are constructed, so the master
plan reflects the area. It's approximately 1.78 acres that we will be
giving to the county to build those improvements.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And that's sufficient to
build the ramp?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's my understanding.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Scott?
MR. SCOTT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And in the agreement you're
going to -- we're going to work with them as far as stormwater
retention?
MR. SCOTT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I wanted to include into
the PUD in the motion the --
Page 142
February 22, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, before you make
a motion, can I verify that the other commissioners have finished their
questions with respect to the public hearing?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I thought they were done.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I'm not sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me remove my motion
then, because I did have a motion. So let me remove it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And if the other commissioners
will inform me as to whether or not they have questions of the public,
or are you ready to have the public hearing closed?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have questions, okay.
Then let me go with Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. Just a couple fast things.
I'm really pleased about the reduced density, that's something that had
bothered me a lot. In fact, I'm very happy about that.
I wanted to know when Immokalee Road will be widened right
there to six lanes. When should it be completed?
MR. SCOTT: Assuming the same type of schedule within the
two years, it actually could be quicker. We have the given -- for the
most part we have right-of-way that's needed for widening the six
lanes. It's within the median. It's part of the design build. That could
go faster than that, but I'm still putting the two-year time frame on it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So if it is not completed by April of
2006, what kind of an impact is that going to have on that particular
intersection until it's finished?
MR. SCOTT: It has an impact, obviously, not all of -- I mean,
I'm assuming that Super Target gets built but not all the outparcels, so
it's less than everything that's shown as all the trips thrown in there.
But I mean, it has an impact, obviously, when things are under
construction, too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you -- I see Norm kind of
Page 143
February 22, 2005
shaking his head back there, shaking his head yes. So you feel that by
April of 2006 it should be finished?
MR. SCOTT: Not on the six-laning, no.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not the six-laning?
MR. SCOTT: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 2007.
MR. SCOTT: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Late --late 2007.
MR. SCOTT: Right, correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I just want to make sure that
we get this clarified on the record so that people understand exactly
where we stand with this.
If we do not agree to the PUD as we're discussing right now and
we say that we deny this, basically what it amounts to is that the two
acres come off the table and the developer can go ahead and start
developing and we don't get anything out of it, so -- and this was
approved back in 1999.
So I want to make sure that everybody has an understanding that
this isn't a new PUD. It's an existing PUD that took place in 1999, and
we're somewhat over the barrel. And so if we go along with this, we're
hoping to address some of our transportation needs in the very near
future here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I jump in here before
Commissioner Coletta to just add one thing?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's okay. I'm just awaiting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas, as you
were saying that, I think there was one other benefit here. And, you
know, I've been tossing this around in my head a lot, but one of the
other benefits is, instead of building three stores, they're going to build
two, and the -- I think, in my own opinion, that if they build a Super
Page 144
February 22, 2005
Target, it will -- it will attract that particular business. If they build
another grocery store and a regular Target, now you're attracting more
traffic, the way I see it, and it would be harder on the road until it's
widened. So it's probably a benefit there.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. The one thing -- there's a reduction of
100,000 square feet --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. MUDD: --of commercial to let --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, and two different markets. I
mean --
MR. MUDD: Less intense use.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- if you build a Publix and a Target,
you're attracting two different markets. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. What was the
value of the land that you're donating to the county?
MR. MUDD: Two million dollars is what Mr. Yovanovich stated
on the record, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I've got to be honest with
you, Commissioners, I think there's a great public good here; however,
if they weren't willing to put that up, I'd be asking questions about
affordable housing, who's going to be underwriting the cost of the
people that are going to be working in this store. I think that $2
million covers an awful lot of public good. I commend you for coming
forward and donating it before somebody asked you for it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That speaks volumes for you.
You did a good job with the community and bringing everyone to the
table, and it was a pleasure once more to hear the residents come
forward, and if maybe not hand in hand with you, at least in near
agreement.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you.
Page 145
February 22, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're closing the public hearing.
Commissioner Henning, you have a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve, and also in
the motion is -- I guess it would be the CO not issued to the project
until April of 2006.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: End of April.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. April 30th.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 33rd.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, April 30th. Also in my
motion is to include the document declaration of development
commitments. But I do want to remove under the agreement number
one, number three, number 10, and number 11, and my commitment to
the neighborhood is to work on these issues. I think this is the county's
responsibility, my responsibility, and also my commitment to stepping
up the road improvements.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning, number
12, I believe, the county staff and the developer have stipulated that
the developer will provide, not 5,000 toward this, but will actually
assume responsibility for --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, and scratching out the
dollar amount on number 12, and will provide the necessary funds
toward installing the crosswalk.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- I just want to say that
Immokalee Road development -- or Immokalee Road design build is
on -- should be on the Board of Commissioners' agenda next month to
expedite that project to take it from four to six. That's my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do we -- Ms. Student?
MS. STUDENT: Thank you. Just a point in clarification. In Mr.
Henning's first motion there was the requirement, and I know the
developer's committed to it, but to give, to donate, that 1.78-acre
parcel for the ramp area that didn't appear in the re-motion motion.
Page 146
February 22,2005
And I understand he committed to it, but I just wanted to set the record
straight.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And that's part of this
motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now is there a second to Commissioner
Henning's motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Halas.
Is there discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just one little thing.
Commissioner Henning said -- or somebody said that the developer
would provide the money for the installation, but I had heard that the
developer would install the crosswalks and flashing indicator; is that
correct?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. My understanding is we'll
construct those improvements.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No? Then it is unanimous. We're going to
take a 10-minute break for our court reporter.
(A recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
And you do have four commissioners.
Page 147
February 22,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, now we have four commissioners,
okay.
Item #8C
ORDINANCE 2005-11: PUDZ-2004-AR-6015 PALM SPRINGS,
LLC, REPRESENTED BY DWIGHT NADEAU, OF RW A, INC.
AND R. BRUCE ANDERSON, OF ROETZEL & ANDRESS,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM THE C-1 ZONING DISTRICT
TO THE PUD ZONING DISTRICT TO BE KNOWN AS TRIAD
RPUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHICH WILL
INCLUDE A MAXIMUM OF 86 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
HOUSING UNITS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF RADIO LANE, EAST OF PALM SPRINGS
BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE
26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 10.75
+-
MR. MUDD: It brings us to 8C. This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members. It's PUDZ-2004-AR-6015, Palm Springs, LLC,
represented by Dwight Nadeau ofRW A, Inc., and R. Bruce Anderson
of Roetzel and Andress requesting a rezone from the C-1 zoning
district to the PUD zoning district to be known as Triad RPUD
planned unit development, which will include a maximum of 86
multi-family residential housing units.
The property is located on the north side of Radio Lane, east of
Palm Springs Boulevard in Section 34, Township 39 south, Range 26
east, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 10.75 plus or minus acres.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Will all those who intend to
participate in this hearing, please stand up to be sworn in.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
Page 148
February 22, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
And, Commissioners, do you have any ex parte disclosure for
this item? Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I do. I've met with the
petitioner, I've had many correspondence, and I've had a meeting with
the petitioner, and all of my correspondence are here in case
somebody would like to go through it. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I had meetings with the
petitioner, correspondence, e-mails, and I talked with staff. And if
anyone wishes to see my file, it's up here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
And I have also had meetings with the petitioner, and I have
e-mails and correspondence, and it's in my public file for review.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I, too, have had meetings,
correspondence, and e-mails, and I went down to take a look at the
property as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've received some phone calls
from residents of Palm Springs Estates, received a phone call from
Dwight Nadeau, and received some e-mails and letters, and they're all
here for the public to review or anybody wishing to.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. -- what
was your name again, please?
MR. ANDERSON: Anderson.
MR. MUDD: He's R. Bruce Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: A-N-D-E-R-S-O-N.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. R, would you proceed?
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of
the commission. My name is Bruce Anderson. I'm here with Dwight
Page 149
February 22, 2005
Nadeau of R W A, the planner on the proj ect. Also with me today is
Ted Treisch, transportation planner from Metro Engineering, and
David Schultz, one of the principals of the Triad housing partners.
This is a residential infill project just under 11 acres, as you'll see
from this aerial photograph. Next door to it, developed on the east, is
the 12 unit per acre Saddlebrook Apartments, to the north is RMF
zoned land developed with single-family homes, to the west is vacant
commercially-zoned land that has filed a residential zoning
application, and to the south of my client's property is the 24-hour
Circle K convenience store.
The areas surrounding this II-acre parcel are an odd mix of uses.
Certainly there is no established consistent land use pattern. This
proposed zoning change reduces significantly the transportation
impacts which would be generated if this property were developed
under the existing commercial zoning. A 200 percent reduction from
general office, and a 680 percent reduction if this property were
developed for medical offices.
My client started out their project and was respectful of their
northern neighbors by locating the preserve area along the north
property line. Nobody had to ask him to do it. He started out that way.
My client met with neighbors' representatives and their attorney
to address their concerns. And as was announced at the planning
commission hearing, my client reached an agreement with the
residents.
I would point out to you in your executive summary where it lists
the stipulations from the planning commission, there is one error on
stipulation number six where it refers to a gate or a fence being
constructed along the north property line. That should be a wall or
fence, and that will be the decision on -- whether it's a wall or a fence
will be made by those northern property owners.
The only stipulation that was proposed to be added by the
planning commission that is different from the agreement reached
Page 150
February 22, 2005
with the residents was to have my client's land accessed only from
Radio Lane if the county department of transportation approved it.
Again, that was not the agreement that was reached with the residents.
My client agreed to ask the county for a temporary construction
access from Radio Lane, and my client agreed to ask county DOT to
locate the project's access on Palm Springs Boulevard as close to
Radio Lane as possible.
Mr. Nadeau was informed by county DOT that the access could
be located no closer than 350 feet to Radio Lane. That is still 200 feet
closer than my client preferred and proposed to have.
My client is concerned that the closer his project entrance is to
Radio Lane the lower the market value of his units in his project, and I
don't think the neighbors want that any more than my client does.
The movement of the access was a concession that was important
to my client, but he was trying to be a good neighbor and agreed to it.
The biggest concession, however, was on density. My client
originally requested the same 12 units per acre as the eastern neighbor,
Saddlebrook Apartments. Staff recommended nine and a half units,
but my client finally agreed with the residents to only eight units per
acre.
Now, neither my client nor the residents got all they wanted. That
never happens. But both sides made concessions and compromise, and
that is the agreement that is before you.
The county commission now requires zoning applicants to hold a
meeting with surrounding residents prior to hearing, and the purpose
of these meetings is to get the residents and the developer talking so
that just maybe the two sides can reach an agreement on the terms and
conditions of the zoning approval.
My client followed your procedures and directions and came to
an agreement with the residents just like you hoped he would. Now it
is your turn to respect the process that you established, to encourage,
if not require, dialogue and compromise with surrounding residents.
Page 151
February 22, 2005
You asked us to reach an agreement with residents, and we did. And
the residents' attorney is the one who prepared the agreement.
Now, if the commission refuses to honor the agreement or tears
up such an agreement, why bother requiring the dialogue between
developers and residents in the first place?
I respectfully request that you honor the agreement, send a
message to other developers to encourage them to reach agreements
with residents on other proj ects by approving this PUD with the
density and conditions as agreed to between my client and the
residents.
Now I'll ask Mr. Nadeau to come up for a moment, and then we'll
be available to answer any questions.
MR. NADEAU: Commissioners, good afternoon. For the record,
Dwight Nadeau, planning manager for RW A representing the
applicants today. I think Attorney Anderson has gone through a fairly
substantial proponent of the -- proponent of the project.
We've gone through the vicinity location. We know that we're
taking commercial lands and down zoning them for residential at a
substantially reduced eight dwelling units per acre. We have been very
conscientious with the site plan wherein we have our conservation
area up against the existing residents.
We did everything that we thought was possible to be a good
neighbor. And as Bruce expressed, we went over -- we went beyond
what was necessary to come to an agreement with the neighborhood.
It's also my pleasure to bring forward to you the project sponsors'
recognition for additional public benefit. And in discussion -- in
discussing that with them, they felt that it might be appropriate to
make a contribution to the affordable workforce housing effort in
Collier County, and to that extent we had a couple meetings with my
client as well as Mr. Cormac Giblin, who is your housing director
under the CDES division.
What our client is proposing to do is to make a contribution to the
Page 152
February 22, 2005
Housing Development Corporation in the amount of $200,000, and
that would be a down payment assistance program. The money would
be administered by the Housing Development Corporation and would
be provided to Cormac's entity for defining who gets the money for
the down payments. It's basically a privately funded SHIP program.
In the audience today we do have Cormac, but we also have the
executive director, Ms. Kathy Patterson of the Housing and
Development Corporation. She may be a registered speaker. I would
welcome her to be able to give you her comments and her ovation for
this contribution.
I'll be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who requested the $200,000 to
the Housing Development Corporation?
MR. NADEAU: Well, it was a concern of ours, and we basically
took the, let's say, bull by the horns and tried to make some --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The residents didn't bring that
up?
MR. NADEAU: Oh, absolutely not, absolutely not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, this is very refreshing. I
commend you for stepping up. There isn't a project that takes place
that we approve that doesn't have a cause and effect as far as
affordable housing goes.
For this to be built, there's going to be X number of people that
are going to be in there laboring to build this place, and they need a
place to be able to have a residence. Even though they may not be in
this particular location, which is only 86 units, I believe --
MR. NADEAU: That's accurate, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- we're going to be able to
provide something off site through our own department. I think this is
a wonderful direction. I hope other developers pick up on this. I
Page 153
February 22, 2005
commend you for this.
MR. NADEAU: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Does the staff have a
presentation?
MR. NADEAU: Oh, I'm sorry. It must be understood, too, that
the contribution is dependent upon the density that we've agreed with
the residents.
MR. BOSI: Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Coyle. Mike Bosi,
zoning and land development review. I'll try to be succinct.
One clarification. The original application that came in at 13
units per acre the applicant was requesting, staff had recommended a
9.5 units per acre based upon the existing zoning and the existing
developments to the east.
Staff has recommended approval based upon the modifications to
the PUD document that were highlighted within the executive
summary. One clarification on top of the clarification that
Representative Anderson made about number six, of course, you
wouldn't put a gate where you're desiring buffering. That is a wall.
But also on number 10, it's not the applicant's responsibility to
revise 2.8 of the PUD document. In that document, that section of the
document, it references the LDC citation to maintenance of common
areas. That citation wasn't translated over when we made the LDC
change. Staff is in the process of updating that, so that's staffs
responsibility .
Other than that, staff would open themself up to any questions
that the board may have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any questions of staff?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are we still going to have a
presentation from transportation?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you -- if you request one.
Are there any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We five public speakers.
Page 154
February 22, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Five public speakers. Okay. Three
minutes each. Let's bring up the public speakers.
MS. FILSON: The first one is Cathy Gorman. She will be
followed by Jonathan Smith.
MS. GORMAN: Hi. My name is Cathy Gorman, and I'm at 722
Pine Crest Lane. I'd like to start with actually a question, because we
didn't hear anything about this 200,000 contribution, and we are all a
little confused. We're representing our neighborhood.
This $200,000 contribution is being made to, I'm just going to
say something like Habitat for Humanity or something like that.
Where is this money going to be spent, all these down payments? Is
that in this particular development or is it going to be somewhere else?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Somewhere else.
MS. GORMAN: Okay. We just want a clarification. Okay.
First thing I wanted to do was present a letter of withdrawal from
a letter that was -- that was given the commissioners. As part of our
agreement, which was worked very hard on with the developer, his
attorney, our attorney, et cetera, one of the -- one of the issues was
getting all the letters that were sent to you withdrawn.
I'm not sure you've realized or were given the packet that all
those letters were withdrawn. We're short two letters. Both people are
out of the country, to the best -- one is definitely out of the country.
We're not sure where the other neighbor is. Can't find them, so we
can't help that one. Here's the last one that I know of.
The other thing is, one of the speakers cannot come. He sent a
letter. His mom died a couple days ago, and he asked that I speak for
him.
In the beginning what happened at the neighborhood meeting, it
was ugly. That's the only way to tell you. But this developer has
worked very, very hard with our neighborhood, and we have to give
him a lot of credit for it.
Weare asking basically exactly what Bruce Anderson asked you,
Page 155
February 22, 2005
which is to make the modification to the one item on number six,
which is to make sure a wall goes up, but otherwise to approve this the
way that it's written.
One other thing that is in here was that -- the issue of where the
entrance could be. If the developer really feels he cannot bring it out
onto Radio Lane as the neighborhood, we are going to accept that. We
are still hoping, and I think it came through, that they are going to
push that entrance as close to Radio Lane on Palm Springs as they
possibly can. That's the only other issue that I wasn't clear on when
they were speaking about it.
And the very final thing was, I listened as you spoke to, I guess,
the people who were on agenda A, which was the home center, and I
listened to -- as Commissioner Halas brought forth when he said that
the property could be turned around and flipped. That is the only thing
that our -- we have great, great concern about.
We've worked so hard with Triad. We don't expect that coming,
but that's why we're asking that every one of these stipulations be met
and that you be very aware that should something occur that we're not
foreseeing here, you know, we would be back before you again. And
that's only thing that really scares us, okay?
So thank you. Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Jonathan Smith. He will be
followed by Rich Hampton.
MR. SMITH: Hi. My name is Jonathan Smith. I live at 761 Pine
Vale Drive. And a lot of my concern is what I have heard a lot today,
is just the traffic issues.
951 and Davis and Radio Road area is very congested, especially
with the Circle K going -- the Super Wal-Mart going in and the
additional commercial properties that have yet to be developed.
The 1-75 and 951 intersection, the traffic is getting worse, and it's
not going to get less cars. It's going to get more cars as time goes on.
Page 156
._-----'-
II. .... ---..
February 22, 2005
This Circle K and the Mazda dealership right near the
intersection of Davis and Radio are two commercial properties, but
there's two that are right adjacent to the intersection which got to be
developed, and that's going to create more congestion.
Radio -- right now there's some 438 units in the Saddlebrook
phase I and phase II development. In our little subdivision we have
some -- about 91 units and this -- additional -- Triad is an additional
86. So the total will be up to six hundred and -- we will have 615
mixed units of traffic going down a right turn-in, right turn-out only
road that's unsignalized.
The planning staff has indicated that it was acceptable to have
nine and a half units. If you notice, the adjacent housing to the north
are actually, it's less than two units per acre. So I -- we are in
agreement that the -- with the developer, and hope it goes through.
The eight is acceptable. But the -- I find that the difference between
eight and two is quite a bit.
As you notice on the plan I have there, there's some 330 foot of
separation if they were to put the entrance along Radio Lane, although
if the developer finds that it's unacceptable and can't work with it -- if
the project is sufficient, I don't have a problem with it either, I
suppose.
The Palm Springs Boulevard currently is only 18 feet wide and
it's not -- versus the 24 that will be required by code, so that has to be
improved.
And I hope that you'll go along with the decision, and I hope that
what turns out is beneficial for the homeowners and everyone
involved. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Rich Hampton. He will be
followed by Timothy Gorman.
MR. HAMPTON: I'll try to be as brief as I can. My name's Rich
Hampton, for the record. I live in the immediate area of Pine Crest
Page 157
February 22,2005
Lane, and I just wanted to point out a few things to make the
commISSIoners aware.
I do want to commend the developer. They did come forward and
were flexible, as was the neighborhood. It was a give and take
relationship. We think we've come to a mutual understanding with all
of the concessions except for -- and I do want to make mention of this
road entrance that you keep hearing about.
And it's something I just want to bring to your attention from the
standpoint that this isn't the first development that's going to be
petitioned to go down there, and I believe that proper planning on the
part of the planning commission and the commission that I'm before
today is definitely going to have a piece of that.
If you'll look up here at this map, I do want to bring this to the
commission's attention. I don't know if you can hear me by stepping
back there.
This is Circle K right down here on the bottom of the map. Okay.
As you can see right here, this is Circle K. We've had to now twice get
with the Collier County public schools and transportation to move bus
stops from kids almost getting hit trying to cross the street from a bus
stop that was located on Palm Springs and Radio Lane. A group of
about 30 students. You can imagine 30 students on an 18- foot road in
the morning trying to get to and from Circle K to get their snacks. It
can be quite hectic.
The developer came forward and said, you know what, we'll fix
that. We're going to put a bus stop in, which is great. We really
appreciate that. But we still have to continue to look at the traffic that's
coming from Tuscan Isle/Saddlebrook with the density levels of 13
and 14 per acre, and all that traffic's coming down that road.
I don't think we can put on Palm Springs Drive an adequate
entrance/exit to two developments, maybe one, and the petitioner here
today might be the earlier bird that gets the worm. Might be able to
put his entrance there. But Mack Builders, who's already petitioned
Page 158
February 22, 2005
before the county is going to also want to put a feeder off of Palm
Springs Drive.
Palm Springs Drive is a residential road right here. This is Palm
Springs Drive, and it's going to have -- it's going to be a feeder to two
developments at 160 units, roughly, if both of them are consistent with
the type of density. It's just something to consider.
Now, I know they've offered to move their road as far down to
Radio Lane as they can, and ultimately it's going to be your decision. I
don't know if we're going to look at, you know, money markets and
what the value cost is, but I just know the closer you put that down
there on that residential neighborhood, the more of a funnel we're
going to create.
I just wanted to bring that to your attention.
I do want to commend them. They did do a superb job. The are
flexible. And we do support the developer.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Timothy Gorman. He will be
followed by your final speaker, Kathy Patterson.
MR. GORMAN: Good afternoon, Council. I wasn't supposed to
be here, but one of the other speakers had an emergency, Marcel, so I
got called into duty.
The developer did do a lot of negotiating with us, and the lines of
communication remained open the whole time. Marcel also asked me
to convey to you he was very happy with the way things transpired,
transpired.
And once again, you know, I think one of the things we're very
concerned about down the road is the next guy in. I would invite all of
you to please come down before the next developer comes and please
look around the area and be very, very aware of where we're going.
You know, we understand you're not going to -- we're not going to
stop progress, but we sure would like to make sure progress is done
correctly.
Page 159
..-----
February 22,2005
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Kathy Patterson.
MS. PATTERSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Kathy
Patterson. I'm with -- the executive director of the Collier County
Housing Development Corporation. I want to thank the developer for
donating the -- the donation for down payment and closing costs,
which the HDC will provide for -- will provide for affordable housing.
The HDC welcomes any opportunity we can to support
affordable housing. We'll partner will anyone that's willing to help us
promote affordable housing in Collier County. We believe that any
help we can get is not only good for affordable housing, but also for
Collier County.
I encourage you to approve this proj ect. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: And that was your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE. Okay. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Halas had his
light on first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does he? Commissioner Halas' light is
always on.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me turn it off.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to get a report from
transportation in regards to this whole quadrant as far as the traffic
situation.
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, transportation planning. They're asking
for 86 units. Across the street, which has been mentioned, is trying to
get 95 units on about a 10-acre parcel.
Just by looking at aerials, not knowing exactly, in the back there,
there's about 72 homes. Down Radio Lane where the apartments are
there's about 403 units, so that's a total of 682 units off of Radio Lane,
Page 160
---~-
February 22, 2005
not counting the bowling alley and the Circle K, which is about 4,900
trips per day.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Forty-nine hundred trips per day?
MR. SCOTT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what you're saying is is that -- so
what do you consider the level of service? And, of course, we have --
just down the road here, we have an intersection that's highly
impacted, and that's Davis Boulevard and 951. So what are we looking
for as far as the level of service at that whole -- that whole quadrant is
basically the question I ask.
MR. SCOTT: Okay. Specifically for the roadways that are, you
know, Radio Lane and the road, you're talking about for a two-lane
roadway 7- or 8,000 per day, so you're under that level, so you're at
least level of service C for those roadways.
For Davis we are about at capacity right now but, of course,
we're within the TCMA, which is averaging of -- you know, you're not
looking at just that roadway. You're looking at how do all of the
roadways within that TCMA work from Pine Ridge down to Davis,
from Livingston over to 951.
Davis itself is now programmed. It was our number one priority
for what, five years now -- is programmed in the fifth year for
six-laning between Santa Barbara and 951. Radio -- the rest of Radio
that's two lanes is included within the Santa Barbara project, which is
the four to six-laning, and also the four lane, which includes the
four-laning on radio.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what'd you say the best guess
was at completing that?
MR. SCOTT: For which one? Davis is starting in five years --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Five years.
MR. SCOTT: --it will be at least a two-year -- yeah. It will be a
two-year project. So it's seven years away.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what about the Santa Barbara
Page 161
February 22, 2005
potion?
MR. SCOTT: Probably starting early next year, and a two-year
project, so 2008.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. My question here is to the
county attorney. They made it pretty clear that if we tried to address
the zoning in the downward area that they're going to pull off the
$200,000 off the table. Would that be considered contract zoning?
MR. WEIGEL: I'd say that it's not. They have told you it's
something that they are going to do. I would suggest that in any
consideration you have or motion that you make with accompanying
discussion that you make -- that you make it clear on the record that
that has nothing to do with the elements of review that you have
before you, which are consistency with the growth management plan
and the land development code and the health, safety, welfare of the
neighborhood area.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Because basically density is
not an entitlement; is that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, density is not an entitlement to the extent
that you're looking for increased density.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So we do have the option if
we -- if we so desire, the Board of County Commissioners, and that is
we can ask that the density be lowered; is that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, you can.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can somebody show me where
the proposed bus stop is supposed to be?
MR. MUDD: Dwight, why don't you just point it out here. Have
a great time with the mouse.
MR. NADEAU: Commissioners, again for the record, Dwight
Nadeau. We've been working with the school board as far as where the
school bus stop should be located.
Page 162
February 22, 2005
You can see this small area that used to be the connection to
Davis Boulevard. That's where the buses turn around. There's two
buses that service this area. The bus stop would be located on the
north side of Radio Lane approximately right in the center of the
project site.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. NADEAU: On the project's frontage.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what's -- where's the
discrepancy about the entrance of the project?
MR. NADEAU: Well, the neighbors had requested that we
pursue options of moving our primary access here south. The
transportation division has informed us that they will not allow it to be
moved south more than 200 feet, so it would be350 feet away from
the Radio Lane/Palm Springs Boulevard entrance.
As a part of the discussions with the neighbors and through the
agreement, they requested that we pursue a temporary construction
access off of Radio Lane. From that discussion, they wanted to further
that to make the permanent access off of Radio Lane.
Now, my discussions with the transportation division, they're not
real thrilled about it, particularly with a bus stop being in there and
with the buses stopping, you're not going to have any traffic moving.
It may -- it may meet the spacing distances, but it may not be
functional for the operation of the roadway.
And in addition to that, you're going to have the homes, rather
than set into the property, the homes are going to -- or the two-story
condos will be on the frontage of Radio Lane rather than internal to
the proj ect.
So there are a number of factors that we had to consider when we
were looking at this, and primarily, it's a health, safety, welfare issue.
You put so many driveway cuts on this roadway, there isn't going to
be any traffic movement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we shouldn't mix
Page 163
_m",____-___' .,',..>_".."....,~^"'^".....,..~,<".,,".__...._ - " .--",,----"-~.
February 22, 2005
driveways with bus stops.
MR. NADEAU: Absolutely not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess that was my concern.
Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
Don Scott, again. A couple things. When you gave -- when you
gave Commissioner Halas a level of service figure, right, which was C
MR. SCOTT: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- was that the total number of units
or a percentage?
MR. SCOTT: That was a total number of the units on either --
looking at the minor roadways, Radio Lane or Palm Springs
Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So that's -- the total is 656
units that were on there?
MR. SCOTT: Six hundred eight-two.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Six hundred eight-two?
MR. SCOTT: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Does that include also the
4,900 trips per day from the two businesses there?
MR. SCOTT: That's the -- no, that was the estimated for all the
units down there. It did not include the bowling alley. It did not
include Circle K.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And what about the two
commercial properties that are on either side; did it include any kind
of an impact from those?
MR. SCOTT: On either side of what?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, on this property. You said
there's a commercial going on -- commercial property going on one
side, right?
Page 164
._,,--
"",_.~-"""._-,,,.-,,"..,,---"'~'"
February 22,2005
MR. SCOTT: That's what I was -- it's zoned commercial. What
they're trying to do is the multi-family here, and also -- well, right here
is the one they are talking about. Over here is Mack, and they're trying
to come in for units also.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That big, long piece of
property, does that have anything to do with this roadway at all that's
over on --
MR. SCOTT: Further over to the east you're talking about?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. SCOTT: No, that doesn't have access over to here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. SCOTT: That has access on Davis.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And you feel that -- I was
looking at that road and it's a very tiny road, and it leads to no place.
And I was wondering if you really felt that this was a safe road to
continue to add more density to. I mean, I think everybody has a right
to build what their property is zoned for, and this is zoned for,
originally, four units per acre. Do you really think that it --
MR. ANDERSON: No, no.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it's C-l.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, it's C-l.
MR. SCOTT: C-l, yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And how many units -- how many --
for a C-l, what would they --
MR. SCOTT: It could be twice as many trips than the
IIllllti-jf(lIIlily.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. No more questions at this
time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What is the width presently of Palm
Springs?
MR. SCOTT: I think it's 22 feet.
Page 165
-.,._._."._..._,,_..,-'".."._-'^~._._'~'~~
February 22, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what's the traffic impact at the
present time on that road?
MR. SCOTT: Do you guys have a count? Do you have a count
from Palm Springs? We don't have a traffic count from that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But yet you want to put ingress and
egress there? And I think there was some concerns in regards to that--
the amount of traffic that it's already incurring.
MR. SCOTT: Well, if you look at strictly -- let me work
backwards. If I look at just strictly the number of units even from
what's across the street, you're talking about 240 units on that roadway
itself. That's roughly equivalent to about 1,200 trips per day. That's not
-- that's not over capacity for a two-lane roadway.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And this is, you said, 20 feet?
MR. SCOTT: Twenty-two.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Twenty-two feet. What was the
main reason of not putting an ingress and egress on Radio Lane?
MR. SCOTT: We always look to try to get the residential to
come off the minor street. Obviously Radio Lane is not the same
Radio Lane as it used to be where it used to connect up to Davis.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So it's basically a--
MR. SCOTT: It's a dead-end right now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. SCOTT: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is there any reason why we can't
put it there --
MR. SCOTT: One of the issues --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- and then take the impact off of
that -- especially right there at the intersection of Palm Springs and
Radio -- Radio Road or Radio Lane?
MR. SCOTT: One of our issues, of course, is the spacing criteria.
We need to have at least 330 feet.
If you look at the -- if you look at -- this is an entrance right now
Page 166
February 22, 2005
to the apartment complex back here. This is Palm Springs Boulevard.
It's roughly 600 feet in there. If you divide it in half, you're still less
than the spacing criteria of 330 feet from driveways.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what -- what improvements do
you suggest on Palm Springs?
MR. SCOTT: Well, we've -- a stipulation as part of looking at a
site development, if it needs to have some additional pavement, we
look at widening a little bit. Obviously we want sidewalks in there as
part of it, too, so the kids aren't walking in the road. They have a
sidewalk down to the bus stop.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So do --
MR. SCOTT: And turn lanes wherever turn lanes are needed.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: When it comes time, do we need to
put that in the motion in regards to addressing widening the throat
there at Radio Lane and Palm Springs?
MR. SCOTT: We will look at that as part -- I mean, we would
still require that as part of site development. If you want to specify
that, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm concerned of the impact -- and
how many other developments do we have north of this project that
are going to come in?
MR. SCOTT: It's essentially what I talked about, the
single-family. There's a small park on the end of this roadway, and
there's -- counting from just the aerial, I estimated there are about 72
homes back there, and that's your development at the end of this street.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm ready to make a motion if
you want to close the public hearing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let me -- any other questions of
staff or the public?
(No response.)
Page 167
^"--.-..""
February 22, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'll close the public hearing.
I would like to say something myself, if you don't mind, before
that motion. Weare frequently presented with circumstances where
we are asked to increase density and increase traffic impacts, and we
balk at that and we're concerned and we say that we should not be
involved in upzoning and increasing density and impacts, but here is a
situation where they're downzoning.
The impact of a C-l development here is dramatically larger than
the current density that is being requested, so we're not adding to a
traffic -- a potential traffic impact here. We're actually minimizing a
future traffic impact if we were to approve this. If it were to stay
exactly what it is, C-l, what can you develop there without even
bothering to ask us?
MR. ANDERSON: Medical offices. They'd probably even allow
a lawyer to have an office there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, that's really going downhill.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So there wouldn't be any traffic
going there then.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We need to change that. But -- and you
wouldn't have to come back to us for approval at all on that, is that --
MR. ANDERSON: That's correct, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So -- and if I remember correctly,
medical offices are about six times the traffic impact as a residential
development; is that right?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And C -- just standard C-l is
probably at least two to three times as much?
MR. ANDERSON: Two hundred percent, I am told by--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Two hundred percent.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So you're asking us to downzone this
Page 168
February 22, 2005
particular parcel so that you can build something that will minimize
the future traffic impact in this area?
MR. ANDERSON: Indeed, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is nonconforming
commercial, and we encourage density increases to change it from
commercial to residential because somebody in the past had a bright
idea about locating commercial at our activity centers. So it is what it
IS.
I'm not willing to mix an entrance with a bus stop. Just, to me, I
mean, that's a no-brainer. I can't see requesting an entrance on Radio
Lane. I don't think it's safe for the existing school kids.
And I don't -- I'm not a traffic expert on where an entrance should
be, so that's up to the developer and transportation to fight.
So I'm going to make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion to approve. Is
there a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta.
Discussion, Commissioner Coletta, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much.
Mr. Mudd first?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Henning, can I ask a question. Is
that with the $200,000 HDC donation?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My motion to approve is that --
based upon it fits the land development code and growth management
plan and health, safety, and welfare of the residents, and it does
include the $200,000.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: As well as all the other stipulations by the
Collier County Planning Commission as contained in our packet?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Except for --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Except for those two that --
Page 169
"-~-_._"...,",..-...",,.-
February 22, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Except for --
MR. ANDERSON: Six and 10.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- a gate or fence, it would be a
wall.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wall, right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Have we determined how high
the wall is going to be?
MR. ANDERSON: The plan is for a six-foot wall on top of a
two- foot berm.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that landscaped?
MR. NADEAU: (Nods head.)
MR. ANDERSON: And also number seven is not -- would not--
should not be included. That is not part of the agreement. That ties
back to Commissioner Henning's comment about not having the
access on Radio Lane.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Number 10 is not part of it either.
That is the staffs problem.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So with those stipulations, we
have a motion by Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner
Coletta.
Now Commissioner Coletta, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
I think we're going in the right direction with this. I just -- the
residents expressed some concern about the possible changes to be
made to this after the whole deal was put together, you know, selling it
in the package to someone else.
I take it that this document that's being put together is going to be
signed off, it will give everybody assurance to the fact that what we
have is what we've got?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's part of the PUD, and it can't
Page 170
-"--"'--
---
"----."'"
February 22, 2005
be changed unless it comes back to the Board of Commissioners
through a public hearing and a neighborhood meeting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. And that has to be said
out loud for the residents that are here. I don't think that has been
expressed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you want me to get closer to
the mike?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It wouldn't hurt.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Say it a little louder.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The other thing, I do believe that
we've found the correct language to get around the business of the
$200,000 donation, or -- so that it still takes place; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it becomes part of the rezone, right?
Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have some real problems with this
$200,000, because I think it's considered a contract rezoning, or
contract zoning, and I'm sorry.
I just think that we're disenfranchising not only the residents in
the area, but I think all of Collier County. And so I have to go -- I can't
vote for that. We don't have any control. What they're doing is putting
us in a box to where we don't have any control over the density in this
area, and I have some concerns about it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And, you know, although these
people are just fine and upstanding people, it almost sounds like a
bribe, and I don't like to be put in that position really.
One of the other concerns I had was the safety on this particular
thing. I've been searching for something that I had read, and I just
found it. An eastbound vehicle must make a left turn against opposing
Radio Road traffic without a traffic signal, and the westbound traffic
Page 171
February 22, 2005
on Radio Road must make a right turn lane to access Radio Lane,
which is a two-lane road. That sounds -- that sounds like a safety issue
there.
I understand also from some of the people in that area, they use a
cut-through that's behind the Circle K because it's easier to get out that
way or they feel it's faster to get out that way, but it also seems to me
that it's another safety issue, almost an accident waiting to happen,
especially with the school buses in there turning around, so I have
concerns.
MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. ANDERSON: Is there -- I'm troubled that my client's
willingness to try to help the county solve a problem has become a
sword used against them.
And we can remove the $200,000 contribution from the zoning
motion and my client will get up later during the public comment
portion of the petition and say what he has to say about helping you all
solve your affordable housing problem.
I'd just remind you that -- that this property could be developed
today commercially with a lot more traffic than we're going to
generate, that access to Palm Springs Boulevard, as a matter of right,
exists today, and this was -- this affordable housing commitment was
made in response to requests. It was not -- it was requested by one of
your fellow commissioners.
So I respond to them the same way I respond to you when you
address a concern, and it's nothing more than that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to remove my -- part
of the donation to the Housing Development Corporation. And
Commissioner Halas is right, it doesn't belong into the PUD
document.
And it actually is a reduction in traffic in this area, and it's
Page 172
February 22, 2005
encouraged by the growth management plan, that commercial --
non-conforming commercial go to residential, and that's why we give
them so many density bonuses in which, in this case, they're not
asking for the maximum density that is required. So it's a less of a
traffic impact to this neighborhood than what it could be.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You still want to talk?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I sure do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could I make a quick statement, if you
don't mind?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Of course.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You know, I would ask the
commissioners who are objecting to this to please reconsider. You
know, we approved a development last year that required the payment
of what, $500,000, to Habitat for Humanity. We demanded that.
MR. MUDD: Heritage Bay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Heritage Bay, and we voted for it
unanimously because it was a good thing to do. We regularly accept
donated rights-of-way from developments which benefit our
taxpayers, and that is what we're paid to do.
We're supposed to make sure that when we make a decision on
land use issues, that -- that we are making it on the best possible terms
for the members of our community, and the people who need
affordable housing are members of our community.
So I would suggest to you that this should never be considered to
be a bribe. It would be a bribe if they walked into our office with a
brown paper bag with $200,000 in it. But in a public hearing where
they're willing to do things that help our community, I think we should
thank them for it, not criticize them for trying to bribe us.
But I would ask you to reconsider the position on that because it
is inconsistent with our past actions. And if we -- if we feel that we
need to do this right now, we need to do something about Heritage
Bay and go back and give that money back to those people, to the
Page 1 73
February 22, 2005
developer. We can't take it from one and refuse it from another.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, you're absolutely correct.
We just got through accepting two acres of land to be able to put an
interchange in. Now, was that the final determination factor of why we
were going to go for that thing? I don't know if that's really quite it.
But I'll tell you something, everything had to make sense from
beginning to end.
We all speak about affordable housing and the necessity for it,
how we're going to be able to get it, how we're going to be able to
provide it. And if we can have developers come forward and offer to
do something -- this isn't inclusionary zoning, it's not going to put it in
this neighborhood. It's something that's going to be there for the
general public.
I don't see it as a bribe. I see it as good citizenship, and I would
hope that other people would step forward and do like they have done,
like Heritage Bay has done, and a number of other people in the future
hopefully will do. If we're going to say because it's affordable housing
we're not going to accept it but we will accept your right-of-way, we
will accept your lake, we'll accept everything else, but we won't accept
the money for affordable housing, I'm lost about where we're going.
So we've got a little bit of a dilemma. And Commissioner
Henning, I think, withdrew his motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It wasn't -- you didn't approve it,
so it stands as it was stated in the beginning, correct?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There wasn't a second to your revised
motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I seconded -- oh, the revised, no,
no.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
I'm sorry. Were you finished?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I was, thank you.
Page 174
February 22, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let's get -- let's get a few things
straight and get it on the record. Number one with -- it's a whole
different ball game when I think the commissioners ask a PUD
developer in regards to concessions in regards to getting something
accomplished. And Heritage Bay, one of the things that we said is we
would like to have them address affordable housing.
I think it puts it in a different limelight when we, the
commissioners, ask versus somebody that comes forward and says,
here is a pot of money as long as I get my zoning of a certain density,
okay?
Now, getting back to the other issue that we just voted on in the
-- in regards to the right-of-way for the loop. Again, we were put in a
position where, damned if we do and damned if we don't, and so what
we had to do is we had to vote on that or take the vote in regards to
addressing the huge traffic issue that we presently have, and that was,
take the two acres, or whatever it's going to take to make the loop, to
-- so that we don't impact the residents any longer than we have to.
Now, this was an -- this was a big global picture and not just a
small segment of the picture. This was a global picture as far as
addressing traffic. So there's where I stand.
It's one thing when we, the commissioners, maybe ask a develop
or somebody that wants to do a PUD, but where somebody comes
forward and says, I'm going to give you this money but, oh, by the
way, it's based on -- you're not going to be able to address my density.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And I owe everybody
here in this room an apology along with the commission. I'm the one
that went with this particular direction. I'm the commissioner that he
mentioned. I seen it as an opportunity to be able to move this forward.
Rather than stand here and say what about affordable housing
and extort it from them, I thought the best thing would be if they went
for and they offered it up themselves to set an example for other
Page 175
February 22, 2005
people that come down the pike.
If that's the only reason why we're going to reject it is because
they offered it rather than I asked them in front of everyone, then by
God, I made a serious error, and I apologize for it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I don't know -- I don't care
who, if that -- if that was part of the agreement in regards to getting
this through.
I just think that it leaves a bad taste in the citizens out there when
they over -- when they look at this and see that somebody's going to
end up and says, I'm going to give you X amount if you'll give me the
zonIng.
To me, that's contract zoning. I think it's different if we asked
those people to come forth in regards to saying, we also need some
help. But since you're going to build this, you want to change this
zoning and you want to increase the density and you're going to sell
this residence to -- it's going to be in the -- I think in the neighborhood
of about $300,000, if my memory serves me right when I talked to the
petitioner on this. And I think that's when you want to address
affordable housing, and that's what we've done with every PUD that
we've come forward to. We've asked from the dais here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Just to bring this back to my
concern, and that is, density and traffic congestion, and it's been
pointed out and it's been pointed out clearly that the total number of
vehicles involved in this, the total number of homes in the area were
all calculated, not a percentage of. That's an important thing to me. So
we're not just taking a piece of the picture; we're taking the whole
picture.
The second thing that's been pointed out to me is that the C-l is,
indeed, already permitted, which would generate a lot more traffic. I
don't know how much, but I've been -- you've said here on the record,
it would generate a lot more traffic.
Page 176
-' .'>-."~.""-~,.~..,,~*, ,..,....,-"~-,~_.,..,"
February 22, 2005
My concern -- my main concern is generating less traffic on a
very small road, and it sounds like that's what you're going to do and it
sounds like you've worked with the neighbors to even diminish that
traffic impact further by bringing it down from 13 to eight units per
acre, so that's even more of a plus. So I will just say that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Call the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Unfortunately I have Commissioner
Coletta --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm out of steam.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning for approval containing all the stipulations contained in the
planning commission recommendations with the exception of those
noted in item six, seven, and 10.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What about the money?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think it includes the money too, doesn't
it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And with the contribution of $200,000 to
the affordable housing commission.
MR. MUDD: HDC, housing --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: HDC, Housing Development
Corporation, okay, HDC. And we have a second by Commissioner
Coletta.
Is there any further discussion? I hope not.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. No further discussion.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 1 77
February 22, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It's 4-1, with Commissioner Halas
dissenting.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's not time for a break, is it?
MR. MUDD: No, not yet, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It feels like it. It certainly does feel
like it.
Item #8D
PUDZ-A-2004-6142 NAPLES SYNDICATIONS, LLC,
REPRESENTED BY KAREN BISHOP OF PMS INC. OF NAPLES,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "PUD" TO "PUD" PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS WARM SPRINGS PUD BY
REVISING THE PUD DOCUMENT AND MASTER PLAN BY
INCREASING THE ALLOWED DWELLING UNITS BY 290
UNITS TO A MAXIMUM OF 540 UNITS, A DENSITY INCREASE
FROM 2.1 UNITS PER ACRE TO 4.52 UNITS PER ACRE; TO
SHOW A NAME CHANGE FROM NICAEA ACADEMY PUD;
AND REFLECT THE PUD OWNERSHIP CHANGE. THE
PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLLIER
BOULEVARD, APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE SOUTH OF
IMMOKALEE ROAD, IN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING
OF 119 +/- ACRES - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE APRIL 12,
2005 BCC ~G - AE.EROVED
Page 178
February 22, 2005
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item,
which is 8D. This item requires that all participants all be sworn in and
ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6142, Naples Syndication, LLC,
represented by Karen Bishop ofPMS, Inc., of Naples requesting a
rezone from PUD to PUD planned unit development known as Warm
Springs PUD by revising the PUD document and master plan, by
increasing the allowed dwelling units by 290 units to a maximum of
540 units, a density increase from 2.1 units per acre to 4.52 units per
acre; to show a name change from Nicaea Academy PUD; and reflect
the PUD ownership change. The property is located on the east side of
Collier Boulevard, approximately one mile south of Immokalee Road
in Section 26, Township 48 south, Range 26 east, Collier County,
Florida, consisting of 119 plus or minus acres.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now this is a reconsideration? I'm
sorry. We need to swear in everyone who's going to participate in this
public hearing, including any potential public speakers.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Ex parte disclosure for the commissioners. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I've had -- prior I've had
discussions with -- meetings and correspondence before, and none
since -- since we voted on the last time, no correspondence or --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I've had meetings with staff
and the petitioner. That's it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have had meetings with the staff and
petitioner about this issue and of course, it did come before us at a
prior BCC meeting.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I, too, have had meetings with
staff and the petitioner. I've had plenty of correspondence also, which
Page 179
February 22, 2005
I will put in this folder and keep for public viewing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I met with -- I spoke to Cormac
Giblin, our affordable housing director, and Rich. And I have no
further ex parte besides what we heard before.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
You may proceed.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich, on behalf of the petitioner. With me today are Bob
Singer, who is the developer for the project, Andy Solis, one of his
other attorneys on the project, Ted Treisch, our traffic planner, and
Shane Parker, with McAnly Engineering, to address any water
management issues.
Obviously I'm not going to go through an entire presentation
because you've already heard the presentation, but I do want to hit a
couple of highlights as to what this project is.
This proj ect is inclusionary zoning. It will include affordable
housing and it will include workforce housing and it will include
market rate housing. It is not asking for any density bonus units to
accomplish that inclusionary zoning. The maximum density that we
could request is 598 units. Based upon the fact that we're in a
residential density band and partially in that and partially out of it, we
can get up to 598 units. We're requesting 540 units.
In exchange for obtaining that density, we are committed to
providing 10 percent of those units, 54 units, that will meet the
definition of affordable housing, and another 10 percent of the units
that will meet the definition of workforce housing.
So there -- and workforce (sic) housing is 100 percent or less of
the median income, and the workforce housing is 80 percent or less of
the median income. So we're committed to meeting those two
categories, so there will be 108 units that will serve that sector of the
community that needs to be served. And I don't think there's any
Page 180
February 22, 2005
question about the need to provide that type of housing.
We believe that -- I don't want to go into a lot -- I mean, you've
already heard the presentation. Transportation-wise, the 540 units is
consistent with the comprehensive plan requirements.
We believe that what we're proposing is better for the
community. I think it addressed some of the concerns that came up at
the last meeting that were really not fleshed out at the time that the
motion was brought.
So we would request that essentially the same motion that was
made originally be brought forward with just a couple of changes, that
instead of 525 units, we be allowed to go to the 540, which we
originally requested, that we provide 10 percent affordable housing
and that we provide 10 percent workforce housing.
In addition to that -- and then the remainder of the motion that
was made stay in place so that we can go forward with our project.
We had already committed to providing some transportation
improvements for the Massey/Woodcrest area on the eastern end of
our property. That's something that transportation really wants to see
happen and will be another north/south corridor to get traffic off of
Immokalee Road and will give some relief to 951 when we go forward
with our project.
We're fine with the same phasing schedule that was previously
brought forward, and we would request that you approve our request,
and we're available to answer any questions that you may have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Does staff have any presentation to
make?
MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chairman Coyle. I won't go into the
presentation because it's already been made. The one request that I
would ask the board is that if you do ask -- motion to approve, the
modifications that were suggested by Commissioner Coletta at the last
meeting with the modifications of -- with the affordable housing and
the workforce housing, that has not been incorporated to the PUD
Page 181
~'--'_._"""
February 22, 2005
document. So if approved, mandate that the applicant provide me with
that document in a timely manner so we can provide that to the state in
the traditional manner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Just to clarify that. We're talking
about 108 units split evenly between affordable and workforce
housing?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's correct. Ten percent workforce, 10
percent, and we would do those by phases, so basically 20 percent of
the units that we construct will include those categories.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Each phases, okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, in each phase.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Very well. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I was the one that asked to
bring this back for reconsideration, and the reason being, that I felt
that the developer went above and beyond the call of duty to see what
he could do as far as right-of-way and bridge improvements.
We also discussed that is a heavily impact (sic) area, and that
when this was brought before us under another name, that we
approved 250 units. And I believe Commissioner Coletta made the
proposal for 540 and it was turned down because we felt -- I felt that
the impact in that area as far as traffic congestion was to the point we
couldn't handle it.
My thought is, I would like to suggest that, and make a motion,
that we look at about 350 units in that PUD. That's an increase of 100
units over what we originally approved when it was considered before
under a different name. And I think that's where we need to go on this.
And if that doesn't fall in, then I can't -- I can't suggest that we go any
higher in density.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second that motion.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, if I -- can I address some--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No motions yet. We're still in the public
hearing.
Page 182
February 22, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner Halas, I understand what
you're saying, but if you want to have a project that includes
inclusionary zoning that will include both workforce housing and
affordable housing, which is 10 percent affordable and 10 percent
workforce, we cannot do that on 350 units.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm just -- that's the reality of how the
numbers are going to have to work. If -- are you telling me you'll give
us 350 market rate units? Or were you anticipating that some of those
were going to be affordable housing units?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's going to be affordable
housing. That is the total amount of density. That's almost like, I think,
three units per acres, I believe it works out to.
Where you were before you were a lot less than that, and that
was under the other -- when it was under the other PUD, and then, of
course, when this was brought before the board before, it was 400 -- or
525 units, which got turned down.
I felt that you people had put enough effort in that I was going to
call it back for reconsideration to see if we could cut down the density
and still get this thing moved forward.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I think from where -- and I
think that the planning commission only gave you additional units of
-- from 250 to about 287, if my memory serves me right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's correct and those were -- you
know, they wanted us to do the -- basically the additional units were
going to be all affordable units, so it made no sense to take the
additional units and go ahead and lose money on those units and keep
the density we had already.
At the last meeting it was a 3-2 vote in -- with three
commissioners in favor of 15 percent affordable. What we've come
Page 183
February 22, 2005
back with is we've increased the amount of units that we're willing to
put into service for both work -- for workforce housing and for
affordable housing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But you understand --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I -- if you wouldn't mind.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You understand where we're
coming from?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand where you are coming from.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're trying to come up with a
good balance of what -- the efforts that you put forth. We're also
looking at the impact that's presently up in that general quadrant. And
I think we figured out there's about 15,000 units up in that area that are
already approved.
And what we're trying to do is, you know, I -- I didn't really have
to go out on the limb here to have this brought back and to consume
our time. I'm just trying to put this to bed, and I felt that a good area to
go in would be about 350 units.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, Commissioner, and all I'm
suggesting is one of the other commissioners had a concern about the
provision of workforce housing in combination with affordable
housing.
Weare proposing that we would provide 108 units that will serve
both affordable housing, 54 affordable, 54 workforce, which is more
than was previously proposed before. We're increasing that number.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But you're also increasing the
density, sir.
MR. YO V ANOVICH: And I -- but not to the maximum extent
that would be allowed under the comprehensive plan. We have -- from
a transportation concurrency standpoint, we don't have an issue with
transportation concurrency.
One of the -- remember, the motion included that we could only
do half of the units now, and we had to wait until the road was
Page 184
February 22, 2005
completed to do the other half. What we're suggesting -- and three of
your colleagues voted in favor -- voted in favor of this motion before.
What we're requesting is that we still live with all of those
requirements, but we provide 10 percent workforce housing, which
was -- we didn't offer any of that the first time -- and we provide 10
percent affordable housing.
So this is truly inclusionary zoning. We're not asking for any
density bonus to get there. I'm not coming in with an affordable
housing density bonus agreement.
Under the comprehensive plan, we could ask for 598 units. We
have given up 58 of those units already and we're agreeing to 104 of
those units serving affordable and workforce housing.
I think that's above and beyond. I don't think any developer has
done that to date. Most developers come to you and say, we would
like to get a density bonus in exchange for providing workforce or
affording housing. We're not asking for a density bonus.
We're saying, allow us to provide workforce and affordable
housing, otherwise, we're better off staying with the 250 units and
doing an upscale community and not provide workforce and
affordable housing.
The numbers don't work for us to go to 350 units of which if -- I
don't know what your percentage would be, but whatever that
percentage is, the additional units don't pay for the affordable and
workforce housing units that you're talking about. It doesn't work
dollars and cents-wise for us.
We're hoping that with this new proposal of providing the
additional workforce housing, that the three commissioners that voted
for it the first time can continue to support that, and one of the two
commissioners who voted against it the last time will, perhaps, change
their vote.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Halas and myself
Page 185
February 22, 2005
did vote against this. Everybody else voted for it. The reason I voted
against it, because there wasn't anything in the PU (sic) document
about an agreement for workforce or affordable housing.
And I think this is the only way that we're going to be able to get
those elements in North Naples is if we make sure that it's in the
document. I mean, that's a true commitment, and I'll just wait for the
public -- chairman to close the hearing for a motion.
MR. YO V ANOVICH: And we're committing to that within the
PUD document, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And phasing it?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And phasing it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. You had said you're
not asking for density increases at all --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- but you're asking for a density
increase from 2.1 to 4.52. I just wanted to clear that up, because
maybe you're looking -- maybe you're using different words, but that's
what it's all about.
And, you know, I voted for this before because I, too, felt it --
you really needed some workforce housing, affordable housing in the
area, it must be done. And -- but, you know what, I wasn't really
thinking about how close this was into this very congested area.
And I don't think we can continue to increase density in an area
that's already terribly impacted, and, you know, we go right back to
5 .1. We have to take these things into consideration, especially in an
area such as this.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, and Commissioner, that's why we
are proposing a phasing schedule to address that concern. We know
that 951 is going to be improved shortly. We've agreed to self-impose
a phasing schedule to make sure that half of the units don't come
online until after the road is completed.
Page 186
February 22, 2005
We're not asking -- and you know, there's no way we're going to
build 540 units tomorrow. We've got to complete our permitting, we're
going to have to get our site development plan, we're going to have to
pull building permits, and we're going to have to construct the units.
Nothing has changed from the previous hearing at which you voted in
favor of this --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, but you know --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- other than we've increased our
commitment to affordable housing and workforce housing in an area
where it's needed. Collier County needs affordable hous --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Commissioner Halas has just
stated that we're increasing our density to you from what the planning
commission advised, 278 to 350, you know. And so, you know, we're
gIvIng you some--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're giving me 72 units that I can't
afford to have you give me because I'm going to have to give you -- I
don't know what the percentage of those are going to be affordable. It
doesn't do me any good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can that roadway afford to have so
much more of an impact? I don't think so.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, if you ask your transportation staff,
and I wish you would, if we are consistent with the county's
concurrency management system --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ah, yes, but that's only figured on a
percentage. That's not figured on the total number of units that are
already existing and the total that are already approved, plus those
going through the permitting process.
It doesn't, to me, in my -- in my view, represent a total picture
there.
MR. yaV ANOVICH: Well, Commissioner, we went through
recently a revamping of the concurrency management system. This is
the system that was agreed upon. We're willing to live with the system
Page 187
.. ._"-,_.......-
February 22, 2005
that was agreed to. If at the time we pull a building permit there is not
adequate capacity on 951, we don't get to pull that building permit.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But what we --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So there is a safeguard to address your
concern, and that is why we further agreed to a phasing schedule.
Under the -- under your system today, we don't even have to phase.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have two more commissioners. Let
me remind you we have three -- or four?
MS. FILSON: Three public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Three public speakers, and I need to ask a
question.
Why don't you just build 250 units?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because, frankly, this is a developer who
has committed himself to build affordable housing units.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Forget being nice. Why don't you just
build 250 units?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, that's not the project and the type of
develop -- he's committed -- he's out in Arrowhead. He has committed
to providing this service. This is -- this is a service that I've heard
every commissioner say we need in Collier County. We're willing to
provide that service, and we come forward to provide that service, and
we're told very politely, no, thank you, we don't want this service.
Where else are we going to put it? We can't -- there is -- look,
951 's the last corridor left, okay. It's the only place where it can go.
There's no affordable housing density bonus in the rural fringe or in
the eastern lands. The only place you can go in the urban area is in this
corridor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're taking it out of the coastal
high hazard area, too.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we're not allowed -- where am I
going to put it? So we come forward and we say, we're willing to do
Page 188
_.~-~..""..,"."-.
-"-~-
February 22, 2005
this without coming with an affordable housing density bonus
agreement, and we're (sic) said -- well, thank you, but you know, the
roads are too congested.
And when we propose a solution to that, which is a phasing
schedule that will address the issues, we're still told no, thank you.
I don't -- I don't know how I can -- what do you want us to do as
developers when we come forward and we don't ask for anything in
exchange for this? Otherwise you're telling us you really don't want us
to address the affordable housing issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Of course not. That's not true.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But there's -- Commissioner Fiala, there's
not another corridor left. It's 951. And, you know, there's no other big
chunks. We're coming in with an inclusion or zoning, everything
we've heard that people want, and I don't know how to address your
issue without going forward like we're proposing.
The developer, he's committed to this type of housing. Ifhe
wanted 250, we could have packed up, we could have left, we would
have never volunteered to do the Tree Farm Road agreement, we
never would have volunteered to provide 50 feet for Massey Road.
These are all things that he's putting out of his own pocket to help
with an issue that he believes in. And he shouldn't be punished for
believing in providing this type of housing. And if we've got to go
backwards, we go to 250, and we'll-- you know, and that's what we'll
do, and there'll be no affordable housing with it and there'll be no
workforce housing with it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: First the county attorney would
like to make some comments.
MS. STUDENT: Yes, thank you, Commissioner Coletta. First of
all, I would just like to say that if the board needs further information
from the appropriate staff, whether that be the affordable housing staff
or the transportation staff, upon which to base a decision, rather than
Page 189
February 22, 2005
reach back to a hearing that was held over a month ago, I would
suggest that that be made a part of this record as well, and also no
matter what the motion is, we need to have a reason or reasons for that
motion.
And I passed out to the commissioners the criteria for straight
rezone and PUD rezone, and we use all of those criteria in a PUD
rezone.
And also if there's any opposition to whatever motion is made, I
need the commissioners in opposition to the motion to state their
reasons, again, based on these criteria and the evidence as these
criteria apply to the evidence presented in the hearing to -- that be
stated as part of the record.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I think we got some good
direction as far as rehashing the whole thing over again as far as the
right-of-way that's going to be given up, how the roads tie together,
how this whole thing comes to be or what it's going to be. I'm very
troubled by this. I see this as a pattern that's starting to develop.
And I -- frankly, the way it's going, I wouldn't mind one bit if we
declared a moratorium on the whole urban area of Collier County,
that's one mile east of -- west of -- east of 951, including the coastal
area, until we solve the road problems to everybody's satisfaction and
the affordable housing issue.
We're not going anyplace with this. This is -- we're just spinning
our wheels. We're not moving anyplace. We can't come to any
resolution. We're just going to rehash this over and over again, and
we're going to keep coming up with these stalemates, you know.
Let's go with the roads again, then we'll come back and we'll start
to see where we are and we'll make a decision, and we'll walk out of
here today hopefully better than when we left.
Mr. Feder, what exactly are we going to -- would we get from
this particular deal if it came together the way it is now?
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, for the record, Nonnan Feder,
Page 190
February 22,2005
transportation administrator.
We worked very hard in trying to develop a concept for Tree
Farm Road. This development, along with others in the area, came
together after a lot of effort to establish a point connection to 951.
And while I think the issues being raised are very important,
obviously, with 951 corridor, the growth that we're experiencing
throughout in this area, the other part of the equation is not just
showing the numbers, it's also how it impacts the system.
And here we've got the opportunity to -- basically to regulate or
structure how that impact hits 951 through a signalized intersection.
Also we're trying to develop a bit of a grid pattern, interconnection,
and that's part of what has been offered up by this development and
others in the area and with the provision on Massey Road, if that
comes forward as well.
So I think we've got some opportunities here that we need to
recognize, that while we're concerned -- and I raised the issue of
concerns on 951 both south and, to a degree, north, we do have a
number of alternatives that are still in our work program in the
northern section of 951. Many of them being east/west, but
nonetheless related. Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension, the
improvements to Immokalee, 951 extension to the north and other
issues. So -- Logan Boulevard as that's moving forward.
So I think we've got an issue here where we've tried to work
towards an item that, like ones we had earlier today, we've created a
situation where we're enhancing the transportation network. Although
-- yes, you're allowing additional development in the area, and those
are the things the board has to balance, but at the same time I think
you need to recognize that 951, the impact is metered by the way that
they're developing by having their sole access off of Tree Farm Road,
encouraging joint access with other properties in the area, and starting
to develop that grid on the east side of 951 that's going to be very
important in the future.
Page 191
February 22, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You had your light on.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just spoke. Let Commissioner
Halas go.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas, I'm sorry. Go
ahead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. As I said, I felt that there was a
lot of effort put into this by the developer, and that's why I felt that I
needed to maybe have this brought back and rediscussed, and I was
hoping that we could come up with some kind of a compromise in
regards to this.
Would you be in favor of continuing this until after we have a
workshop in regards to where we are on the traffic issue on 951 and
the surrounding areas?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: When's your workshop scheduled?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm not sure. When is it?
MS. STUDENT: March.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 25th.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: March 25th.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are you going to commit to me that we
can be on the next agenda after that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Whatever, I just think we need --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I mean, March -- I'm just -- if that would
be -- because I do think that we are working -- we, and I'll use this in a
broader sense, not just this developer, but other developers, are
working with your transportation staff on how to address W oodcrest
and Massey and Tree Farm on how all that will relieve the issue.
I think it's critical that the commission work with us to make this
happen, otherwise, there's really no incentive for the development
community to come in and assist. This has got to be a win-win for
everybody.o
Page 192
February 22, 2005
I think the workshop is a great idea. I think Mr. Feder and Mr.
Scott can bring back some of the proposed solutions. And if we can be
on the agenda after the workshop, we would not have an objection to
the continuance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, where I'm going with this is
that I think all of us receive e-mail every day in regards to the high
amount of congestion that's in this corridor at the present time, and so
that's what our biggest concern is.
And we want to make sure that we address health, safety, and
welfare, for not just the only development area in this particular area,
but all of Collier County that has access to that ingress and egress each
day, and so we're trying to figure out the best way to handle this and to
control the density in that area.
And if I knew I was going to run into such a buzz saw, I'm not
sure if I would have asked that this be brought back. And I thought
maybe we could come to a resolution today, but obviously not. I think
the next best alternative would be to address this after we have our
workshop.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We -- I'm sorry. Marjorie?
MR. STUDENT: That meeting, I believe, is April the 12th, so
just so it's on the record, that's -- when you make the motion, you can
set the date.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I want to hear from the public next.
Call the public speakers.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. We have three public speakers. Shane
Parker?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: He's with me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. FILSON: The next one is James Brennan. He will be
followed by Susan Brennan.
MR. BRENNAN: She won't be here.
MS. FILSON: Mr. James Brennan will be your final speaker.
Page 193
February 22, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. BRENNAN: My name's James Brennan. I live at 2805
Golden Gate Boulevard West.
For 45 years I worked in the construction industry. I'm not
anti-development, I'm not anti-developer. In fact, developers are my
heros. I was the president of the building trades in Atlantic City
through all the development of the casinos. Developers hired our
people for years. I love them; however, it's not government's job to
increase or enhance the developer's profitability.
Affordable housing is just that. It's what you can afford. I'd like
to live in a penthouse over there on Naples Bay, but I live on Golden
Gate Boulevard.
They claim if they build this affordable housing or this workforce
housing, they'll lose money. I don't believe that. I don't believe that.
Maybe they'll break even on it, but I doubt they'll lose a dime.
They want to build additional units here simply to enhance their
profits, and I commend them for that. That's what they're in business
for, to hire more people. Nothing wrong with that.
But from my home to the dog track in Bonita Springs, it used to
take me 17 minutes, door to door. Now I'm lucky if I can get to the
crossroads of 951 and Immokalee Road in 17 minutes, and that's in
good times. Don't dare come down there early morning work hours or
late evening work hours. Don't dare try it.
Nothing should be increased along that corridor until Immokalee
Road and 951 are completed. Not started, completed. Every one of
you know what happens when a construction site starts. You can't get
up and down that road now. What the hell you going to do when
another thing starts up there?
Commissioner Fiala's 100 percent correct. The figures that are
used -- what is it, 13 percent of what's actually there? The units that
have already been approved up there -- it boggled my mind when the
last thing started. That boggled my mind. I wouldn't even want to
Page 194
February 22, 2005
dream of this one starting.
The only way -- you were speaking about density. The only way
I personally could be in favor.of this is if my skull was dense enough
that the impact on the highway system there would not penetrate into
my brain. That's the only way I could be in favor of it.
So I would say to you at this point in time -- and I talk to a lot of
people out there. I don't know why none of them are here now and I
don't care. A lot of them shoot their jaws off one place or another but
don't want to show up here. But I don't know of a soul out there that
wants to even contemplate what would happen if you allow this to go
through.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That was the final speaker. I'm
going to close the public hearing.
Commissioners, is there a motion or additional discussion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we continue
this after the -- we have our workshop in regards to where we are with
concurrency and the level of service out there in this quadrant of 951
and Immokalee Road.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Can we put a specific date?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's March 12th.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Continue this to March the 12th?
MS. STUDENT: April 12th.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: April 12th.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: April the 12th would be the next -- okay.
So the motion is to continue this hearing until April the 12th.
Motion by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
Page 195
~,~....'.m^
February 22, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
eN 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous.
Do you need a break?
THE COURT REPORTER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll take a 10-minute break.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're back in session.
We're now going to item -
Item #8E
ORDINANCE 2005-12: PUDZ-A-2004-AR-5879 CHAMPION
LAKES DEVELOPMENT, LLC, REPRESENTED BY RICHARD
YOV ANOVICH, OF GOODLETTE, COLEMAN AND JOHNSON,
PA., REQUESTING REVISIONS TO THE PUD DOCUMENT TO
ABANDON THE PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE USE AND REPLACE WITH CONVENTIONAL MIXED
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPES, AND CHANGE THE
NAME OF THE PUD TO COPPER COVE PRESERVE RPUD. A
MAXIMUM OF 300 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS ARE
REQUESTED ON 101.5 ACRES, WITH A PROJECT DENSITY OF
APPROXIMATELY 2.96 UNITS PER ACRE. THE PROPERTY IS
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CHAMPIONSHIP DRIVE,
IN SECTIONS 11, 14 & 15, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - ADOPTED WITH
s..Iœl.ILAIIONS
Page 196
February 22, 2005
MR. MUDD: 10E -- excuse me, 8E.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 8E.
MR. MUDD: And that is old 17C. It's PUDZ-A-2004-AR-5879,
Champion Lakes Development, LLC, represented by Richard
Y ovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman, and Johnson, P .A., requesting
revisions to the PUD document to abandon a previously authorized
recreational vehicle use and replace with conventional mixed
residential dwelling unit types, and change the name of the PUD to
Copper Cover Preserve RPUD.
A maximum of 300 residential dwelling units are requested on
101.5 acres with a project density of approximately 2.96 units per
acre. The property is located on the north side of Championship --
Championship Drive in Section 11, 14, and 15, Township 51 south,
Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida, and this item was pulled at
Commissioner Halas' request.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas, can you tell us why
you pulled it --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And is there something specific you'd
like to know --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I did.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sorry, I'm sorry. I have to -- we have to
swear everybody in.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Swear them in.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sorry.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And for ex parte disclosure,
Commissioner Halas, do you have anything?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't have any ex parte disclosure
other than the fact that I went out there and looked at the area.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And --
Page 197
-..._-~-,.-
_.~._-
February 22, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The reason I pulled this -- I'm
concerned about --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Before you start that, let me get the ex
parte from all these other people.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, I'm sorry, sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have none.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I met with some people a while
back, quite a while back, but I think I should put that on the record
anyway, and I've asked a few questions around, and I've received
some e-mails.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no ex parte
communication on this revision of the PUD document.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I spoke very briefly with the
petitioner's representative on this item. Other than that, there has been
no communication at all.
So, Mr. Yovanovich, are you ready to respond to Commissioner
Halas' question?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I will do my best.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The reason that I pulled this is I
went out in the general area to see where this development's going to
take place. I don't have any concerns with the development. What I do
have concerns is, is with the road situation out there, that the -- the
road is very narrow. I believe that it needs to be widened.
And the proposal that I would say is that after 100 homes are
built, that it needs to be addressed or widened possibly with some
sidewalks.
One of the concerns that I have out there is that there was a
development out there called -- I believe it's called Pelican Lakes
Page 198
----~-'"
February 22, 2005
PUD, and the documentation here says that the dedicator or successors
and a sign -- and assigns shall be limited to building permits for not
more than the equivalent of 150 residential dwelling units for
development upon the dedicator's remaining adjacent land without any
further improvements in the contributions to the construction of a
dedicated area unless and until one of the following occur.
The way I interpret this is that Pelican Lakes didn't live up to
their commitment in regards to providing the roadway there, and I
would suggest that the developer here of Copper Cove work together
with -- and bring to fruition the expansion of the road at Pelican Lakes
along with Copper Cove working with that, and I believe the other one
would be Fiddler's Creek, to address transportation needs out in that
general area.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner, in response to that, I do
want to point out that the PUD document already provides for that
possibility if your staff determines that it is, in fact, necessary. It
already requires us to pay our pro rata share.
I believe staff and Mr. Jarvi have already kind of analyzed that
and don't believe that we're ever going to trigger a need for a four-lane
Championship Drive.
We think at worst there might be some improvements basically at
the intersection of Championship Drive and 951. It probably will
require some additional striping to provide for a northbound turn lane,
a southbound turn lane on 951, and then a turn lane in onto
Championship Drive.
And we're committed in the PUD document to already do that if
that, in fact, is triggered, and also have agreed to pay for a permanent
count station that will give your staff all the data they need so that
they can analyze and determine if that is ever triggered.
So I believe we've already addressed that in the PUD. There's not
a unit number that it's tied to. We've left it to the permanent count
station for staff to determine if, in fact, it is necessary and what those
Page 199
---.--.'~,..,._".._^..- ,.
February 22, 2005
improvements mayor may not be. So I believe the PUD document
already addresses that issue.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, the concern that I have is that
the Pelican Lakes hasn't lived up to their -- their PUD in the early '90s
and how can we bring that -- them to the table?
And the only reason I felt that this would be a good time to
address it is because of the fact that the developer that you're
representing wants to put 300 homes back there, and I think that's
going to -- and then, of course, you've got Fiddler's Creek that also
intersects with that roadway.
And so I was thinking this would be a good time to address this
whole issue.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, you know, it might be, but let me
tell you how that probably would play out. Fiddler's Creek has no
need to come back here, so there's really no reason for them to
participate in an agreement, in the agreement.
The people from Pelican Lakes are going to scream that that was
a commitment that their development made that now they must
shoulder the burden of doing that. I don't think they're going to come
to the table too readily, and they're going to see this as an opportunity
to make us pay for all the improvements because we're coming
through to rezone and convert an R V park, which they don't want next
to them.
We're doing -- we're converting an R V park to residential units,
which I think everybody in the area thinks is a great, great change to
go to more conventional residential housing.
We -- again, our PUD says that if there is an issue, we have to
pay our pro rata share. So we will -- we may ultimately be in the
position of having to address that situation. And honestly, I'm not so
sure that the agreement -- and we'd have to figure out, have they
triggered, have they done 150 equivalent residential units to trigger
their obligation to do this. I don't know the answer to that question
Page 200
February 22, 2005
today.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County attorney?
MR. WHITE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Have you looked at this where --
how many units out there -- is there out there in Pelican Lakes?
MR. WHITE: I don't have the answer to that --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And how can we get these people --
MR. WHITE: -- factual question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How can we get these people to live
up to their commitment when they said they were going to -- what do
you mean by equivalent, I guess?
MR. WHITE: That's -- ER units, equivalent residential units is a
term, I believe, that is used with respect to some of our utilities, in
particular, I think, water and/or sewer, and I think it may equate
closely to one for one for a dwelling unit, but it isn't exactly the same.
I don't want to, you know, speak for the staff in regards to that.
Again, it's a factual matter. I'm not familiar with the regulation that
you're reading from, but certainly understand that it would be
susceptible to being part of our PUD monitoring and compliance
process, and if there is noncompliance that's present, I believe that it
would be appropriate for the staff to look at that and to follow up on it.
And I don't think you've asked me about anything else, so I'll just
let it go at that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And Commissioner, we don't have a
problem with our commitment to pay our prorata share, and it's
already in the PUD document. I just don't want to get tied to Pelican
Lakes who may have not done their job. I don't think it's fair to hold us
accountable for something they mayor may not have done.
I think -- we got a unanimous approval from the planning
commission. The residents around us are happy with the conversion. I
think it's a good project for the area. And we would hope that you can
support it because your issue is already addressed in the PUD
Page 201
February 22, 2005
document.
MR. WHITE: If I could add to Mr. Y ovanovich's comment on
that and ask him if he might be agreeable to an amendment to that
PUD document, Mr. Chairman?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: To do what?
MR. WHITE: To essentially put in the standard provision that
says that any of the developer commitments that are made would be
included as appropriate in the restrictive covenants that be enforced by
the lot owners.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we got your -- we got your change,
Mr. White, and that is incorporated into the revised PUD.
MR. WHITE: I think that ought to get you probably much of the
way you wanted to go.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. WHITE: It can't operate effectively off site for another
development, but it's as close as making sure that this particular
developer keeps all of the commitments that have been made as part
of this project.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right. I'll go along with that. Do
you want me to make a motion to that effect?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll need to close the public hearing.
MR. WHITE: I think he's -- I think he's indicated it's already in
the PUD document.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Then I think what we need to
do is that at a later date I have to get with you and figure out how
we're going to -- we have to look at what happened in the past here to
make sure that those people live up to their obligations, those people
being -- what was it? Pelican Lakes out there.
MR. WHITE: Absolutely, Commissioner Halas, we'll work with
you and your staff through our office to ensure that compliance is
obtained.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have no speakers, right?
Page 202
February 22, 2005
MS. FILSON: That's correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we don't have to close the
public hearing, right?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir, you do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I do?
MS. FILSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You just told me I didn't.
MS. FILSON: No. I was telling you there are no speakers. I'm
sorry .
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I heard the same thing that you did,
so I think --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're going to close the public
hearing.
Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I make a motion that we
approve this PUD with the stipulations that were put forth by the
planning commission and also the additional documentation that's
going to be put into the agreements.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think Commissioner Coletta beat you
on the second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That's fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's a motion by Commissioner Halas to
approve with the stipulations contained in the PUD documents as
amended by the county attorney's comments, and seconded by
Commissioner Coletta.
Is there further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If not, all those in favor, please signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 203
. '". ".... ~.. ,r
February 22, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there any opposition?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it's unanimous, and it is approved.
Item #10C
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT'S PARTICIPATION WITH
WGCU PUBLIC BROADCASTING AS A FINANCIAL PARTNER
TO PRODUCE A DOCUMENTARY SERIES ON THE HISTORY
AND DEVELOPMENT OF COLLIER COUNTY AND ITS
COMMUNITIES AT A COST OF $33,000 PR YEAR, OVER A
MR. BRENNAN: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if we could do -- get out of
sequence just a little bit. Mr. Brennan's been with us most of the day,
and he's from the WGCU public broadcasting to give a presentation
under 10C, and that is a recommendation to approve Collier County
government's participation with WGCU public broadcasting as a
financial partner to produce a documentary series on the history and
development of Collier County and its communities at a cost of
$33,000 per year over a period of three years to start with our '06
budget.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You mean you don't think he
enjoyed all this entertainment today?
MR. MUDD: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You think he wants to hurry on?
MR. BRENNAN: It's a learning process.
Page 204
February 22, 2005
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is going to be a 30-second
presentation, as I understand it, right?
MR. BRENNAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
MR. MUDD: State your name for the record.
MR. BRENNAN: For the record, Terry Brennan, WGCU Public
Media. Thank you. It was very enjoyable, very educational. I've been
sitting here since nine.
I represent WGCU Public Media. We're the PBS outlet for all of
Southwest Florida. Weare the number two ranked public television
station in America, and I just want to state for the record that starting
in 2000, the year 2000, the station reaffirmed its -- reclarified its
mission to include a large portion of our resources being directed
towards the production of community-oriented television
programming for Southwest Florida.
To that extent, we produce four television series now and a
number of other programs. Some of you may have watched the Edison
Festival of Light Parade over the weekend; 200,000 people attended it.
We televised it live.
In conversations with -- we do a great deal of work with all six
county school systems. We produce ready-to-learn programming that's
taken out to the schools. We communicate readily with the school
systems regarding children's television programming that's used in the
schools.
And in conversations with the school systems, all six county
school systems in our coverage area, it became apparent to us that
there was a real opportunity to develop a series of history programs
that focussed on the history -- telling the history of the communities of
Southwest Florida.
I'm going to make this brief because it has been a long day. We
embarked upon this project actually about two years ago. To date we
Page 205
_._,,;..........__.,-~,.~.""~'"
February 22, 2005
have completed 13 documentaries. We have another 20-plus programs
in development.
We've -- I've made presentations to five of the six counties in
Southwest Florida, most of the cities in Southwest Florida. We
developed some grant opportunities, sources to provide some of the
funding for these programs and made the decision to approach the
county -- the communities of Southwest Florida for the balance of the
funding.
This is a partnership with all six county school systems. It is our
intent to produce a series of programs. These are 30-minute programs
that will run on public television numerous times, that will be
provided to all of the community cable channels in Southwest Florida
for programming, and will be provided to all the school systems to
function as core curriculum materials for history program -- for history
classes for Southwest Florida.
In addition to producing the programs, we are developing a series
of -- we in conjunction with the school systems are developing a series
of curriculum materials that will accompany these programs into the
classrooms over the years.
To date we've completed 13 programs, as I said, and those
programs span five of the six counties of Southwest Florida.
It was our intent to start and look at Collier County, and we have
had a number of meetings with the Collier County museum.
In each case we go into the communities, we work with the local
historical societies, organizations, to help develop these programs to
provide the archival materials, et cetera. And we've, as I said, met with
the Collier County history museum in that context here.
We've developed a list as -- and it's in your packet of -- of
actually the 15 program ideas of which we looked at as essentially
nine basic programs.
MR. MUDD: Eight are on the screen right now.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay, yeah. And you have this in your
Page 206
February 22, 2005
information packet as well. What we are seeking, we are committing
resources and funds from other grants that we have to the extent of
$18,000 per program. These programs cost between 35 and $40,000
apiece to produce.
It was our intent to seek funding from the commission for nine
programs over three years to the extent of $11 ,000 per program, three
programs per year over three years.
We intend to approach Collier County schools, the municipalities
in Collier County, to provide the balance of the funding. So we are --
we are committing resources at this point to provide about half of the
funds we need to produce the program. We're looking to the county
commission to provide half of the additional funding we need.
And with that, we have a short program. I don't know if we -- we
had a four-minute program which showed -- which some of the
commissioners have seen and some have not. I don't know whether the
audiovisual people are even here still, so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, they left.
MR. BRENNAN: So I think -- I'll be glad to provide that
program to those commissioners who haven't seen it if they want to,
and I'd like to invite Ron Jamro up also to explain the museum's
participation in this and then throw it open to questions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What happened to 30-minute --
30-second presentation?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: Ron Jamro says he's going to be thoroughly
involved in this particular issue and let Mr. Brennan have whatever
information he needs so he can video it and make that video history
and something that we can display not only on our own channel, but
on public -- on the public access channel in the process.
Again, this will be -- if the board approves this, we will bring this
forward -- and it gives the board another opportunity to say no. The
staff would bring it forward as part of their '06 budget proposal, and
Page 207
February 22,2005
then it would be '07 and '08.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any questions by board members?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Just one. Have you done this in
other counties right around this area that we can -- we can research?
MR. BRENNAN: Yes. Like I say, we've produced 13 programs
already. We got a grant -- we got grants from Lee County, Charlotte
County, and Hendry County commissions to provide funding for
programs about communities in those counties. We'll be glad to
provide you with copies of all of the programs if you'd like to see
them.
I do also want to -- a part of this -- an integral part of this
program is we are going to not only play these programs, not only
offer these programs to the schools, but we are archiving all of these
programs on the Internet along with all of the materials that went into
the production of the programs.
And, for example, since we're not going to show the video, these
programs are 30-minute programs in the classic Kinburn style. They're
voice over narration, talking about the history of the community in a
somewhat chronological sense, interspersed with interviews with
historians and interviews with members of families who have some
direct link back to the beginning of the communities. If you've seen
any of these programs, you know what I'm talking about.
Weare going to archive all of this material on the Internet in an
archive around the program so that teachers can use these programs as
a living history archive to teach students about the history of the
communities.
I might add -- and we were hoping to make a presentation around
the TDC presentation, because these programs provide a wonderful
resource for new members of this community, the Southwest Florida
community, to understand the history of the communities.
In your packets was a letter from Jack Bovey (phonetic), the
social studies coordinator for Collier County schools. By the way, I
Page 208
February 22, 2005
have letters from all of the county coordinators and superintendents
supporting this program.
He states in that letter that there are no materials like this
available, that the teachers in all six county school systems are crying
for this type of material to use in the classroom.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You really answered my question a
long time ago.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Sorry to cut you off.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion by commissioners?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta, seconded by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. You got it.
MR. BRENNAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I'm sorry you had to wait all day for
this.
MR. BRENNAN: That's all right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The next time you might want to ask for
a time certain.
MR. BRENNAN: Right. I learned a lesson today.
Page 209
February 22, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. BRENNAN: Thank you. I'll be back next year.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MR. BRENNAN: And we hope to have a great progress report
on the first -- actually we have three programs planned, the Collier
County programs for the coming year. We're going to start this project
actually before the beginning of the year with a program in August.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Thank you.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 2005-101: REVISED 2005 NEIGHBORHOOD
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM MANUAL CONTAINED
POLICIES,
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item,
which is lOA, and that's a recommendation to adopt by resolution the
revised -- bless you -- the revised 2005 neighborhood traffic
management program manual, containing policies, procedures, and
techniques. And Don Schneider, from transportation division, will
present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that manual is in our packet and we
have read it.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes, sir.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you have any questions?
MR. SCHNEIDER: No, I do not have any questions.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we do have one speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a speaker, okay.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. The importance of that manual is the fact
that it lays out set procedures and set guidelines and grading -- and
Page 210
February 22, 2005
grading procedures for staff to talk about traffic calming issues within
neighborhoods, and that's important for everybody to know that there
is a set standard out there, and that's what the board is considering at
this particular point.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. My only question has to do with
the percentage of people that you need to begin a project of 10
percent. I think that's an extremely low percentage to get started on a
proj ect. But, nevertheless, maybe somebody can clarify that for us as
we go through.
Commissioner Henning has got a question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My question's for lOB, so I'll
hold it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. So lOA we have one
speaker.
MS. FILSON: We have one speaker, Mr. Chairman, Chuck
Gunther.
MR. GUNTHER: Chuck Gunther. I actually come up here just
basically to let you know that I think some of the people in the
neighborhood here in the county like this. It sounds great. Our
neighborhood here is looking into making some traffic calming areas.
One of the things I thought -- I think that should have been on the
consent agenda, just to okay it, but your question about the 10 percent,
I think if you read it, it starts off with three to five people you need to
start it as a team, then it goes to 10 percent to show that there's really,
you know, some interest. After that it goes to 50 plus one. So I think
that kind of covers the 10 percent.
This program looks great because it's asking for the
neighborhood backing, and the grass roots, which is what you want. I
think -- I know in my neighborhood, the neighborhood has asked for
this already on one street. We want to do it now, and the neighborhood
now, I know, will go along with it.
And it helps when the neighborhood is drawing something out
Page 211
February 22, 2005
from itself, and this is exactly what this is asking for, which is nice.
And I know out -- we're involved with the CRA, so the CRA is
looking for this. I can go to the neighborhood, and the neighborhood
will actually say, let's do it. Now I can say, good, we have the CRA
behind it, too, so it's going to help all the way through I hope. So I'm
100 percent for it. It sounds good.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MR. GUNTHER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. No other public comments?
MS. FILSON: No other public speakers for this item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, tell me -- my concern is, you
know, we've gotten into projects before when we had just a handful of
people initially involved, and then it turned out that the majority of the
neighborhood didn't really like it.
Do you feel that 10 percent is a large enough approval percentage
to begin working and committing time and effort on a project? Do you
feel comfortable with that?
MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. To start a program,
it works. What it does is it eliminates the people that are just
complaining and that aren't really interested in doing something across
the neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Then if you feel
confident about that, I'm happy.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any other questions or comments from
the commissioners?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
Page 212
February 22, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
Is there any discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Thank you very much. Goodjob.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Court Reporter, how you doing? Do you need a
break?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: She just came back from a break a few
minutes ago.
MR. MUDD: Oh, that's right. I'm sorry, sir. She just came back.
I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, do you need a break?
MR. MUDD: No, I'm fine, sir.
Item #10B
PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS TO PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW AND STATUS
OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND THE ADVANCED TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (ATMS); PRESENTING SOLUTIONS
TAKEN TO MITIGATE INCREASED TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND
DIMINISHED ROADWAY CAPACITY; THE STATUS AND
OBJECTIVES OF PHASE 2 OF THE ADVANCED TRAFFIC
Page 213
-""~
February 22, 2005
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM; AND EXAMINATION OF TRAFFIC
ENGINEERING TECHNIQUES AND TECHNOLOGIES TO
Brings us to lOB.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: It's a presentation to the Board of County
Commissioners to provide an overview and status of traffic signals
and advanced traffic management system, A TMS, to present solutions
taken to mitigate increased traffic volumes and diminish roadway
capacity, to state the status and objectives of the phase two of the
advanced traffic managements system, and to examine traffic
engineering techniques and technologies to implement in the future.
And Mr. Norm Feder, your transportation administrator, will present.
But I think Bob Tipton's going to help him.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And he has three minutes, Sue.
MR. FEDER: And Mr. Chairman, I will be extremely brief so
that I can let Bob take most of those three minutes.
Basically what I wanted to do was to make sure that this board,
and for that matter the public, is very aware of our commitment to
traffic operations and to making the most efficiency we can out of the
system that we have.
As we finalize most of the expansion within the urbanized area of
our roadways, it becomes even more imperative that what we'll be
facing in the urban portion of the county is the maintenance of our
capacity and the control of that through the signal system.
We've made some significant improvements. I'll let Bob go
through that. We have some plans for the future. But what I did want
to tell you is we've taken this issue very seriously, enough so that
we've set up a separate department within the division, and Bob
Tipton is that director, and I'll have him present to you where we are
today.
Page 214
February 22, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Thank you, Norm.
MR. TIPTON: Bob Tipton, director of traffic operations, for the
record. And we were requested to speak to the board about the traffic
signal timing and rephasing efforts and our A TMS, our advanced
traffic management system, that's being installed, and the future
technology that we might be using.
I think we've all seen this. There were some good articles in the
paper on Sunday about the traffic this year being so much heavier. I
don't think we needed the paper to tell us that. Everyone seems to
know.
It's not just seasonal. It's year-round, but it's worse in season, and
there are several reasons for having such traffic problems that we've
been having.
One of the biggest problems is our, what we refer to as the
six-by-six network that we have in the county. We have six arterials
basically running east and west and six running north and south, and
everyone lives in developments that are attached to the arterial but not
to one another. It creates a situation where everybody has to go out
and drive on an arterial to go to Publix, and it really adds to the
congestion to the roadway.
We have too many closed communities, not all are gated but are
closed. They don't connect. Very little circulation.
And basically I get two types of calls in our office about traffic
signals; one is, how do we get rid of all these signals that are stopping
traffic, and then they turn around and ask, how do we get a signal at
our development. So we're averaging about 10 signals a year right
now being added into the county.
Another problem is the sheer number of vehicles that are coming
to the county. The roads aren't keeping up with them. That's my three
minutes?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MR. TIPTON: Okay. Looking at fourth quarter counts, just
Page 215
February 22, 2005
comparing the past four years, 2000 with 2004. Pine Ridge Road,
four-laned in 2001. That was -- in the past three years that traffic has
gone up 24 percent.
Livingston Road wasn't even here in 2000. Opened in 2001. It's
now using -- has 30,000 vehicles a day south of Golden Gate
Parkway.
Immokalee Road, one of the worst places in the county as far as
traffic. Four-laned in 2000 just east of the 1-75. Traffic in the past four
years has gone up 46 percent at that location.
MR. MUDD: Do you have a button on that one; you want to get
us up to Immokalee Road?
MR. TIPTON: There you go.
MR. MUDD: Okay. That helps a little.
MR. TIPTON: Another place, same road out east. Commissioner
Coletta is well aware of this one. Out at Oil Well, Randall and Wilson,
they're all two-lane roads coming together. We have three traffic
signals. Immokalee Road is current -- now running 67 percent higher
than it was in the year 2000.
And Collier Boulevard is currently now -- down by Davis is
running 49 percent increase, plus it has two additional traffic signals
that it didn't have at that time.
We have a -- we have a five-year work program. It's working to
relieve these problems, but it does take several years to get out there
and build the roads. In the meantime, we have the two-edge sword.
The construction will solve the problem, but it creates constraint
during the construction activities and will also push traffic over other
-- onto other arterials so that you have even more traffic than you
would have had under normal circumstances.
We have, as Norman said, put a lot of emphasis now into
re-timing the arterials, and re -- even so much as re-phasing some of
the signals. We've increased the staff. We have an engineer on hand
by the name of Randy Ensell, that came to work for us, and he's very
Page 216
February 22, 2005
good. You've probably all seen the back of him while he's leaning into
a cabinet. He's out there every day adjusting traffic signal timings. It's
a full-time job, and he's working, I think, about 50 hours a week doing
this.
We also have another gentleman that's going to be joining us next
month, and he's coming from the City of Corpus Christi. He's the city
traffic signal engineer for the city of Corpus. He'll be joining our
traffic management department.
Some of the efforts we've done, up on Immokalee Road where
there's eight signals from Airport to Oakes, five of those signals are in
eight-tenths of a mile, and we have re-timed those signals several
times, re- phased the signals at 1- 7 5 to maximize the east and west
flow.
We're currently up now running a 200 second cycle during the
peak times, which basically means it's 200 seconds for the entire
provision of movements at an intersection. That's about as high as we
can go.
If we start going higher than 200 seconds, people start running
red lights because they realize they're going to be sitting there for
three minutes if they miss that light, and it just starts pushing people
over the edge.
I was just so happy to see what happened this afternoon with the
projection of the installation of the cloverleaf here. That's the only
thing that's going to solve this corridor right now. We will be out there
continuing to tweak it until that's online.
Further out east, we are out at Oil Well, Randall and Wilson.
We've lengthened the cycle out there. We're out there every day
working on that.
We have a heavy truck problem out there. The westbound,
they're running loaded. They're keeping their distance apart. It's a
safety thing for them, but it really messes up the traffic.
The Estates are growing so fast out there, and all we can do is go
Page 217
February 22, 2005
out and try and balance the delay so that everybody suffers equally.
The construction is moving along well out there, and good news for
those folks is that Randy, our construction engineer, is moving into his
house out on Everglades Boulevard next month, so they will be
getting a lot of attention.
Pine Ridge Road, the 16 signals along there, that has been
re-timed twice during the past year. There is eight signals from
Goodlette-Frank Road to YMCA that are especially troublesome.
But we've re-timed the entire corridor, we've rephrased the signal
at Forest Lakes/Shirley, and we'll be re-phasing the signal at 1-75
agaIn.
County Road 951, another hot spot. It's got -- had three signals,
two were built. The Super W al- Mart and the Golden Gate High
School, we'll be working on those continuously until we can get that
six -laned.
Of course, Airport Road and Golden Gate Parkway, that's
something that we are at every month adjusting that one. We've
changed the cycle length time there, which is problematic because that
intersection is coordinated with all the intersections on Airport Road
down to Glades Boulevard. So when you change the cycle time at that
intersection, you have to change every one of those intersections to go
back in and get them coordinated correctly.
And then now we are putting a lot of work in on Vanderbilt
Beach Road. We have construction activities out there. It's a two-lane
road. Two mile section, we have four signals that we're trying to get
coordinated.
We find out we have problems with signals both from -- well, a
signal crew driving around answering calls, have re-timing personnel
looking for problems, we have computers monitoring the signals that
are on phase one now, but we also get a lot of help from the public.
This doesn't show up well. This is the county's web page. And if
you go to the county's web page, there's a spot on there where you
Page 218
-----..---~._~. .,.
..^~~,-_...._,.".>.
February 22, 2005
can, as it tells you, report traffic signal problems. If people will go to
that site, click on there, it gives them a hot link to a complaint form.
Works very well. They can request that we contact them or not. All
that asks is that they include information such as time of day and day
of week that they had the problem.
We've realized that people, especially commuters, will notice
situations better than we can because they see them every day. They
know what it's supposed to look like, and when something changes,
they spot it right away . We're dependent upon the public and we
strongly encourage that.
The A TMS system, we're currently involved in phase two, which
is the expansion to the east, and the addition of the video monitoring
of the arterials. And also along in that line is implementing the traffic
management center, the TMC as we call it.
The TMC was in a rented building. We have moved to the new
transportation building to get it into a county-owned building. It's --
the room where the TMC is has been constructed. The raised floor is
in, offices, and the work stations are in. The server is installed and
running, and we are able to communicate and change timings on the
50 intersections on the phase one.
We're ready to start building our video wall and -- brought this
picture. This is from Broward County. I took a tour last month to see
the control centers in Dade County and Broward County. We're not
going to build anything as big as that. But I wanted to see -- for you to
see the technology.
In the middle there is a large screen that's called a Barco video
wall, and then on the sides you have the TV monitors. The beauty of
this is the Barco wall you can set to partition any way you like it. You
can have your map up in place and running it.
And if you have an incident, then you can bring video into the
Barco wall and you can get a good image of what's going on out on
the street, see if you need to call fire, ambulance, whatever.
Page 219
--'~~'"
February 22, 2005
We'll be building it, a much smaller installation. This will be
ours. We'll be using a five by 10- foot Barco, and then we have four of
the plasma screens similar in size to this one here behind me. And it
will be bringing video back like this so that we can actually see what's
going on out at the intersections.
As I said, the phase one was mostly the western part of the
county at Airport Road to the west. That is online and we are also
installing video into that area now as part of phase two. Phase two is
the eastern part of the county as far as the signals go. We're expanding
out to 951. We'll be bringing those intersections under control.
As far as the future, we're looking at a program called SCOOT.
It's from England. It's purchased through the Siemens Group, which is
the distributor in North America. It's the -- approved by the board last
month for a pilot program. We'll be installing that along Pine Ridge
Road.
SCOOT concepts are quite a few, but the main thing with
SCOOT is that it constantly derives traffic signal timings. It's the best
signal timing for that particular moment of the day, of the week, based
upon real-time traffic data that's coming in. It's constantly devising the
plans, and it changes from about every four minutes.
The benefits of SCOOT, is that it improves the traffic flow. The
biggest benefit that we're looking at is the one listed here on the
bottom, is that it automatically adapts to unexpected traffic conditions,
and that's especially useful for incident management. If there's a crash,
a breakdown or whatever, as there always is during peak hour, it will
help to make up for that loss of capacity.
SCOOT is a proven strategy for hot spot traffic control. It's the
most studied of all the adaptive algorithms. There are a number out
there. There are two commonly in use, this being one of them, but it is
the one that's been studied the most.
It can be implemented on a selected basis, that is, you can put it
where you want it and at what time of day, and it serves as a
Page 220
February 22, 2005
compliment to the standard time of day control.
Pine Ridge Road, the corridor that will be -- that was chosen was
basically chosen because of the heavy traffic on that, heavy peak
traffic. It has a lot of incidents almost daily, and quite honestly, it's
one of the few roads in Collier County that's not going to be under
construction over the next couple of years.
And it will go from Goodlette- Frank Road over to Santa
Barbara/Logan, and we'll be bringing that online along about next
December.
And with that, I'd just like to put the address and phone number
up there. Anybody has any problems with traffic signals, we would
appreciate you letting us know about it. Prefer the Internet address,
because it makes it so much easier for me to dispatch or to answer
them in the evenings, but we'll also take telephone calls, take
messages.
And then you said you had a question, Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning has a question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess it's more for the Board of
Commissioners. It's obviously (sic) that we're trying to do -- trying to
be proactive on traffic issues, but those things that are mentioned,
those capital improvements are not going to be tomorrow. They're
going to be in the near future, but they're not going to be tomorrow.
MR. TIPTON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's a level of frustration by
the citizens or the people who drive in Collier County in certain areas
like Randall Boulevard and Immokalee Road or even Immokalee
Road in general. It's just horrendous the amount of traffic that they're
faced with.
Why don't we ask the sheriff, since the sheriff has a traffic
operation team, or traffic enforcement, to assist us during peak a.m.
and peak p.m. hours to move the traffic along?
The other thing I want to bring up, too, is, is the board willing to
Page 221
~..-<'
February 22, 2005
direct our transportation staff to bring back some sort of ordinance,
creating where we charge for convenient traffic lights out there, that's
convenient to some but not the general public? Those are the two
things that I wanted to bring up about this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I wanted to know how the
A TMS system was working. You can just grade it, you know, like
grade --
MR. TIPTON: Right now on a scale of 10, what it's doing, it's
doing really well. I would say that it's doing a 10, but we're not fully
utilizing it yet. But once we get everything up and -- I mean, it has
several different modules. Once we get all the modules up and
running, I think it will work very well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. And I notice that the Pine
Ridge community still has those barriers up. Are you going to be
removing those, or are they there for life?
MR. FEDER: We're talking about the Goodlette-Frank Road
construction at Pine Ridge. They're not there for life. They're only
there for my lifetime, but I believe they'll be coming down soon.
MR. TIPTON: They've taken root.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You know, I think there's a good point to
be made here. And whether it will be of any comfort to the people out
east who are really running into terrible problems right now, I don't
know.
But a few years ago we were having these same complaints on
Airport Road and Golden Gate and Goodlette and u.S. 41, in
particular. You'll recall we established a moratorium on u.S. 41 south
of Pine Ridge Road. That's no longer happening.
The real bad traffic problems are occurring much further east,
and that's exactly what we anticipated, because when we started
moving development further east, that's what happened.
And so whether it's a combination of SCOOT and Livingston
Page 222
---.-.-..,"----
February 22, 2005
Road or other things, things have improved somewhat in the -- in the
western portion of the county, and the traffic reports of Larry Hannon
were quite revealing. They traveled three roads, same three roads they
traveled three years ago, and they found that in two of those cases, the
travel time was actually less than it was three years ago, and in only
one instance, which I believe, was Golden Gate --
MR. MUDD: Pine Ridge.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Pine Ridge --
MR. MUDD: Four minutes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- was four minutes longer. So I think
that's remarkable considering the increase in traffic that has occurred
in Collier County over three years. To be about at the same point you
were three years ago, I think, is a good achievement. It doesn't
necessarily mean that's where we want to stop.
But the point is, we've accommodated a lot of traffic without it
getting worse in those areas, but it really got worse out further east.
And as you pointed out we're causing some of that because of our
construction schedule anyway. So yes, it is going to be bad.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you so much. Of course,
what we're talking about is not Golden Gate Estates. And for those
people out there that are listening at this point in time, I know you're
not stuck in traffic at this moment, but that's probably a rare moment.
And I don't mean to poke humor at a situation that is driving
people to great despair out there. But there's a difference in travel time
out there that exceeds 45 minutes from last year to now. I realize that
Immokalee Road is probably the main culprit for one -- or at least part
of the reasoning for it, and we do have some measures in the works as
far as Everglades Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard with a
signaled intersection going in with turn lanes that will help some, but
we have some major difficulties.
And I know you all received, my fellow commissioners, all
Page 223
-----...--~.
February 22, 2005
received invitations to go out there and ride with some of my
constituents, and they even offered to buy you doughnuts and coffee,
but I told them that you can't accept gifts and you'd bring your own.
But it's something that I really need you to take a serious look at.
I've got to be honest with you, I've never received the level of
complaints that I have about our roads as I have in the last couple of
months.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, if I could. I think the chairman did
a good job of identifying. We started out a little over five or six years
behind the eightballs in not doing something for quite a while. Don't
build it; they won't come. We didn't build it; they came anyway.
Within the urban area, we put a heavy concentration to this
board's effort on construction, on improving our efficiency of
operations, closing off median openings, other issues, to recapture
capacity .
And I think that your -- as was pointed out, we've seen some of
the results of that. But at the same time, that growth has continued
throughout the county, and particularly out in the eastern portion of
the county. That's why at your strategic planning, your major focus is
-- was what are we going to do in the east county, how are we going to
attend to that.
We've got major projects programmed, but we've had growth
that's continued out there while we've tried to catch up on the issues in
the urban portion of the county. I'll be the first to state that.
I think we've got a couple of challenges though. Right now a lot
of the problem we're having on Immokalee Road relative to Oil Well,
Randall, and Wilson is not just the construction that's underway
because two lanes are being maintained out there generally, although
construction slows things down.
We've got major, major truck traffic with hauling issues with
some major projects that are going on, and that hauling traffic is very,
very disruptive.
Page 224
February 22, 2005
We have expanded bus use throughout the county, particularly
out in the eastern part of the county with bus routes that are also
impacting us. That's not to say that we don't have to still solve it.
We're working towards it. Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, Wilson
extension, Immokalee, a lot of the issues.
But, yeah, you're correct, there's -- the time has probably been
maintained, somewhat reduced some in the urbanized area, but we
have a lot more work to do to continue. As the chairman pointed out,
it's a marathon, not a sprint.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I wanted to point out, too,
that the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association -- and what is the third
Wednesday of this month? I don't have a calendar in front of me.
MR. FEDER: It may be this Wednesday.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The day after the third Tuesday.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The day after the 13th. Thank
you, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The third Tuesday.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It would be --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. The third Wednesday of
the month --
MR. MUDD: Of March is the 16th.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: March 16th. There will be a
meeting at the Golden Gate Estates Fire Station on 13th right off of
Immokalee Road. We're going to have -- staff is going to be doing a
full presentation on the roads, where they are, where they're going.
And we're inviting everyone that would like to be updated on it to
please come.
At that meeting also, too, we're going to be putting together a
political action committee that will be following the road situation and
reporting back to the civic association on a real basis to be able to see
Page 225
February 22, 2005
what we're doing, when we're going to do it, try to keep everything on
schedule. That will be at seven o'clock on that third Wednesday of the
month.
COMMISSIONER HALAS COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Feder, do you think that the
sheriff can assist us moving traffic during the peak ours of a.m. and
p.m.?
MR. FEDER: I think the sheriff can do many good things, but
what I will tell you is that if you have -- especially as we're moving
into more sophisticated traffic control systems, if you have the traffic
control system as we're working it now, it operates better typically
than having an officer trying to direct traffic, with the exception, if
traffic is blocking the intersection because it's coming through at the
end of a phase, running it and blocking the intersection, like happens a
lot -- used to happen more -- at Airport and Vanderbilt, as an example,
there an officer's presence can make a difference.
But generally speaking, the signal timing and use of the signal is
better than trying to get an officer to direct traffic. People aren't
loitering when the light turns green. Some of the trucks don't move
very quickly out off of that, and that's one of our problems out on
Immokalee.
But our real issue would be to hold to the traffic signal timing,
unless we're having a problem where somebody is blocking the
intersection or illegal maneuvers, cut-through traffic that's coming out
and using the middle area on Immokalee, as an example.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it won't help the example of
Immokalee and Randall?
MR. FEDER: I think there's some spot areas or issues where it
could help. But as far as being at a signalized intersection and taking
over for the signal, I'm not sure that's a big benefit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would you recommend then that
the Board of Commissioners ask the commissioners to assist you in
Page 226
~---
February 22, 2005
certain areas to move traffic at peak time?
MR. FEDER: I think we've got some spot areas and some areas
that we could definitely identify. And one I can think of in that area of
Immokalee where whatever assistance they can provide would be very
helpful.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you think it's fair that the
general public be impeded by some of these traffic light -- or some are
of these convenient traffic lights, and shouldn't the Board of
Commissioners adopt a policy, making it fair to everybody?
MR. FEDER: It's an item that I've been looking at quite a bit.
And the way I characterize it, if you have a traffic signal that's on an
arterial, by its own nature, that arterial represents two legs of an
intersection.
If the other two legs are basically to less than public use, going
into a shopping center, let's say, on one side, going into a gated
community on the other, that signal's operation is not for the benefit of
the motoring public on that arterial. It is, rather, for that shopping
center and that gated community.
And so, therefore, the delay in time is something that we possibly
need to try and find a way to bring to the board as possibly something
to be addressed, compensated for to allow us to add capacity
elsewhere on the system to compensate.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, can I -- let me throw a couple --
you're looking for a couple of instances where we can really get some
benefit from somebody helping.
F or instance, if you go out right now -- and Commissioner
Coletta and I have been out there driving. If you go to Golden Gate
Boulevard and Everglades Boulevard. Right now you've got a
four-way stop, okay. That means they're all stopping, waiting for the
next guy to show up. Well, there's a reaction time that transpires there
that is wasted.
If somebody was there, for instance, the 44 cars that we sat
Page 227
February 22, 2005
behind when we were going from north to south on Everglades
Boulevard, if somebody was at that intersection moving traffic from
the north and moving them at like 10 cars at a time, holding back the
next and moving the next 10 until we got that light in there, that would
help immensely in the morning and probably in the evening because,
you know, people are stopping for that one car that's going from west
to east. And, you know, people have been waiting, you know, for a
long time when that car just shows up, okay, and gets through that
intersection. So that could be a big issue.
And, again, when we went out there and we were sitting at
Randall and Immokalee Road and looked at the 100 dump trucks,
okay, that were lined up going from -- and I'm going to go from north
to south. You can go from east to west, whichever way are in that
particular queue.
But there was 100 dump trucks that waited. When the light
turned at Randall and Immokalee and gave them the green light to
keep going into Naples as we know it, they were lucky to get four
trucks through there because the trucks don't start up as fast, like a car
would.
So by the time the first truck gets going, okay, and the next one
figures out it's time to go, and then the next one, you get four trucks
through, and you get four trucks, and you still have another 96 that are
sitting there with all the cars interspersed trying to get through.
Could somebody be there and move that along a little bit, hold
the Randall issue in order to get that traffic going and then push them
through on Randall? Yes. In those particular cases, that would help.
And those are two instances that I've seen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, why don't you define those and
gIve us --
MR. FEDER: I will.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- give us copies -- or identify those areas
where you think police help would be appropriate. And if you want to
Page 228
February 22, 2005
instruct me to send a letter, I'll send a letter.
MR. FEDER: We will do that, and as well, if that's the desire of
the board, we'll bring back to you this convenience issue as a proposal
for your consideration as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Good, good. Thank you very
much.
Item #10E
RESOLUTION 2005-102: URGING THE FLORIDA
LEGISLATURE TO ADOPT LEGISLATION ALLOWING LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS TO USE PHOTOGRAPHIC TRAFFIC
CONTROL SYSTEMS IN THE DETECTION AND
ENFORCEMENT OF RED LIGHT VIOLATIONS TO ENHANCE
MR. MUDD: That brings us to 10E, and that is to approve a
resolution urging the Florida legislature to adopt legislation allowing
local governments to use photographic transpor -- excuse me --
photographic traffic control systems in the detection and enforcement
of red light violations to enhance safety at signalized intersections, and
Ms. --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wonderful idea. Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Move to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, second. I second it. Okay. It's a
motion to approve by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner
Coyle.
Is there any discussion?
MR. MUDD: Sir, if I could just make a public announcement.
The Florida law does not give us the wherewithal to put cameras on
red lights in order to get people that go through red lights, and this
legislation is to tell our legislatures to please enact it so that we have
Page 229
..·~c~'~.·
February 22, 2005
the authority to do that so that we can enforce red light runners with
photographic -- and take their picture, make them pay a fine, and stop
this baloney.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Sounds great to me.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there anyone who's opposed to that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. It's unanimous.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Be careful --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: $150 fine. See if we can generate
some Income.
Item #10F
COMPONENT AND SERVICE PURCHASES TOTALING
$256,804.00, WITH TOTAL PROJECT COSTS TOTALING
$307,143.00, AND AUTHORIZING A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN
THE AMOUNT OF $115,000.00 FOR THE INSTALLATION AND
SYSTEMS PROGRAMMING OF NUTRIENT MONITORING
EQUIPMENT AT THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 1 OF, and
that's old 16C2, and that was brought forward at Commissioner
Coyle's request, and it's a recommendation to approve component and
service purchases totaling $256,804, with total project costs totaling
$307,143, and authorize a budget amendment in the amount of
Page 230
February 22, 2005
$115,000 for the installation and systems programming of nutrient
monitoring equipment at the South County Water Reclamation
Facility, project 725081.
And, again, this item was brought from the consent agenda to the
regular agenda at Commissioner Coyle's request because he said it
was so simple that we need -- no, it's very complicated and--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have absolutely no problem with the
project, but the executive summary was so incomprehensible that I
had it pulled because I wanted you to come here and explain in very
concise terms what this was all about and how all these figures add up
to whatever it is you're asking us to approve and why it can't be
presented in a simpler format for all the commissioners to read and
understand.
Now, you've made a lot of progress on some of the others. This
one needs a lot of help. But I don't want to spend a lot of time
belaboring this point. Can you give us a brief, concise statement of
what you're asking us to do?
MR. McGEE: Yes, sir. For the record, I'm Dennis McGee with
the public utilities engineering department. I'm the instrumentation
and SCADA manager.
F or the purposes of conciseness, I won't repeat the title of the
executive summary here. Note that it is item 10F.
In a nutshell, without going through my summary and slides at
the very beginning because you asked the question, what is it you are
being asked to do.
Two things in multiple parts. Number one, approve
procurements, independent separate items via different procurement
channels. That's the first thing you're being solicited to do. And
number two, approve the budget amendment that will appropriate the
funds necessary to fulfill this project through to completion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And what is the total amount of
funds that you need to have appropriated for this purpose?
Page 231
February 22, 2005
MR. McGEE: It's 115,000 is what is requested via the budget
amendment. And I attempted in the addendums to delineate as best I
could where the numbers lie.
What you're being asked to approve purchase-wise is for a total
of 256,000, but this doesn't represent the total cost figures for the
project. There's other associated costs such as engineering fees and
miscellaneous services that need to be accounted for within the
budget. What was presented is basically the current checkbook figure
as $173,400.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, does that mean that you're going to
come back for the additional amount of money some other time or --
MR. McGEE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What's the difference between 170
something thousand and the 256,804? Total procurement cost
installation. And I presume installation means just installation. It
doesn't include purchasing or --
MR. McGEE: Installation includes the final phase of the project
that will fulfill it through to completion. So, yeah, the -- the 256,000 in
purchase items will be accounted for provided that the budget
amendment of 115,000 is granted.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So you've already got the other --
MR. McGEE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- amount of money already appropriated.
MR. McGEE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's already been approved?
MR. McGEE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Thank you very much.
Can we get these things a little simpler next time?
MR. McGEE: Yes, sir. I'll certainly work towards it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE. Okay. Executive summaries are supposed
to be short and to the point.
MR. DeLONY: Got your point, sir.
Page 232
.----.----".. -
February 22, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE. Okay. Thank you very much.
I make a motion we approve,
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's seconded by Commissioner Halas.
Is there any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is anyone opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
Item #lOG
THE USE OF TRANSIT ENHANCEMENT FUNDS (313) TO
PURCHASE A PARA-TRANSIT BUS UNDER STATE
CONTRACT #FVPP-02-CA-1 AND TROLLEY DECAL WRAP IN
THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $64,000.00, WAVING OF THE
FORMAL COMPETITION, AND PURCHASING FROM FIRST
CLASS COACH & EQUIPMENT A PARA-TRANSIT BUS THAT
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is lOG, and that used
to be 16B2, and that's a recommendation to approve the use of transit
enhancement funds (313) to purchase a para-transit bus under state
contract number FVPP-02-CA-1, and trolley decal wrap in the
estimated amount of $64,000. And that item was brought forward at
Commissioner Coletta's request.
Page 233
---
February 22,2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, thank you. I brought
forward two items. When we lose that day, that Monday, I don't get a
chance to interact with staff, and that's the reason why, and I'll try to
be very brief on it.
We're paying 64,000 for how many buses to wrap them?
MS. FLAGG: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record,
Diane Flagg, alternative transportation mode. 64,000 is for one bus
that includes the wrap.
The bus is -- it's not your typical bus that you see on the road for
the Collier Area Transit System. It's a smaller bus that has 14 seats.
And what we use this bus for is, the supervisor drives it, so as the
routes -- we have some routes that exceed the capacity of our current
system, so they will use this bus to run a secondary bus as a catch up if
we have anyone left at the stop.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And forgive me, but we're
supposed to be providing an affordable alternative for people trying to
transport back and forth. And I know that we made a deal with the
City of Naples to get this thing up and running. They wanted the thing
to look like trolleys.
But, you know, $64,000 to wrap a public transit bus stop, I don't
think that's something we want to get too deep into here. But is this
something we want to bring back to the MPO? I'm really not too
excited about approving it at this point in time.
MS. FLAGG: Commissioner, let me just clarify. This is for the
bus also.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, that makes a world of
difference.
MS. FLAGG: Yes.
MR. MUDD: So Commissioner, it's about $57,000 for the bus
and about $7,000 to wrap it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
Page 234
February 22, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry we didn't get to this
sooner so we could have sent you home.
MS. FLAGG: No worries.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I looked at it and it said wrap,
and I'm reading $64,000, and I'm saying, boy, I'll tell you, we're out of
our minds here.
MS. FLAGG: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Coletta for approval, and Commissioner Fiala has
seconded.
Any discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous.
Item #10H
COMMISSIONER FIALA REQUEST FOR BOARD APPROVAL
FOR REIMBURSEMENT TO ATTEND A FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. WILL ATTEND THE COLLIER
COUNTY REPUBLICAN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE LINCOLN
DAY CELEBRATION OF MARCH 12,2005 AT THE NAPLES
BEACH HOTEL & GOLF CLUB; $75.00 TO BE PAID FROM
,
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 10H, and that's --
used to be 16H2, and that was, Commissioner Fiala requests board
Page 235
February 22, 2005
approval for reimbursement for attending a function serving a valid
public purpose, will attend the Collier County Republican Executive
Committee Lincoln Day Celebration on March 12th, 2005, at the
Naples Beach Hotel and Golf Club. Seventy-five dollars to be paid
from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. And this item was brought
forward by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I brought it forward for a
very good reason. The description here is extremely vague. If you read
this thing, you'd think that you're dealing with something that's
nothing more than a Republican party function, beginning and end of
it, when the truth of the matter is, the people that are going to it are
going to be interacting with our state representatives and the federal
representatives, and it's not something -- just a party affair, you know,
where -- if it was something that was just a party affair like what we
hold here in the evenings once a month, that's a whole different story,
but this isn't.
I just wanted to get that out in front. And maybe some other
commissioners might have some comments on it. But if I was reading
this thing from afar, I would say, what are we doing? We're paying
these people to be Republicans?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That is a good point, and I think the
distinction is a good one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We've got a motion from
Commissioner Coletta and a second from Commissioner Halas for
approval.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 236
~-_..
February 22,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous.
Item #11
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to paragraph 11,
public comments on general topics.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have one speaker, Mr. Kenneth
Thompson.
MR. THOMPSON: My name is Kenneth Thompson. I come here
today to apologize to you for the last two meeting times I was here. I
was trying to get the pain relieved from my body, and I finally did
with five doctors.
N ow I'm having to wear this stupid thing here, and Friday I have
to have another surgery. It's the only way I can live right now, and
then Friday they going to go back and plant the battery in my hip and
then take these wires out of my back and sew them through the flesh.
So that's all I wanted to tell -- you know, but one more thing, that
somebody's going to do something with that boathouse one way or
another, because this woman that lives in that boathouse, she's living
there with three dogs, and now they brung (sic) another pair of people
in there. I don't know where they got them from, but one of them
looks like a sheep dog. I never seen a woman look so terrible.
But then they're out drinking all night, and this, that, and the
other. And this woman, since she has been there, she gets a temporary
tag and a car today. She'll drive it 20 days, she'll carry it back and get
Page 237
~"..
February 22, 2005
another temporary and another car. It just keeps on and on, and she's
got her kids in school, and I wonder how she did it.
And her husband is about -- about the worst of the things I ever
seen. I don't believe I've ever witnessed anything like it.
And the air-condition, it is just getting louder and louder, and I'm
going to ask you to do something. I know you're not going to do it.
That Sondra Dinicola, she's been out for a while, she hurt her elbow
here. And I've asked you one time, if anybody ever needs a raise, that
lady does, because I think she's the sweetest thing on this earth.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: She with code enforcement?
MR. THOMPSON: And she was there Sunday. And maybe I
shouldn't say this, and she's got the papers on Dave Steinberg who
owns the house. And then a couple of months -- couple weeks before
that, code enforcement called me up and he says the man, Joe Jackson,
bought the house and he's a working the house out, and he's got a
paper that states that he owns the house and he does not have to
register his house with the county. That's a little bit farfetched. You
got a home, you register it with Abe Skinner.
And it just keeps -- that property has been put there to cause my
mother-in-law, my father-in-law the worst problems in history, and the
more creeps that turns over -- he's up in South Carolina right now
doing the same thing him and his daddy's been doing here in Naples
for years, taking the homeless people for a ride.
He's even had me to put some of them in jail. They can't pay their
rent, and he'll bring them over and pretend they're robbing, you know.
And he's got me in charge of looking after the house, and then I'll
catch them, I'll call the sheriff, and then Dave will have them locked
up. And I feel real sorry about putting some of them in jail like that for
no reason, and then I'm finding out it was for his rent money, and then
he'll go to the insurance company and get his rent money for the stolen
goods that he had, and everything he had wasn't worth nothing to start
with. And it's real bad situation.
Page 238
February 22, 2005
And since I was here last, I have locked so many people up right
there in front of that house for going and coming, going and coming.
About sometime back, I had a -- there was a guy moved there,
come there. He had moved in with a Cadillac, and I got his tag number
and I called 775-8477. And, boy, they was interested in that tag, and
they came out and they sat there about all day, you know, and they
finally got in touch with me on the phone, and they said, what time
does this guy show up? And I said, 2:30.
You should have see what he did. He just opened his truck, his
trunk of his car, he carried his drugs in like you would carry your
groceries in. This is actually truth. You can check with the sheriffs
department. They put him on a $565,000 bond, and then they checked
him again, and they took -- withdrawed the bond. That was Joseph
Manuel.
And I have never seen so much drugs pulled out of one house in
my life. And the people that's living there right now, they keep
breaking in the house. They keep breaking in the house.
But as far as me apologizing to Don Hunter, I'll never do that as
long as I live. I did to one of his deputies, Ray McPherson, and he's a
God gift to people, I tell you that. I don't know what I'd do without
Ray. He's a good person.
And as a matter of fact, I don't have no problem with none of
them. I used to drink a lot, but then I'd get locked up a lot. I didn't get
locked up, I just paid $2,000 fine and go home. And the next day, do it
to me again. So I told them the next time -- when I die, they going to
take me to the courthouse and bury me so they wouldn't have to dig
me up once a year and give me a DUI.
So I really think the world of the sheriffs department. I think
more of that uniform they wear, because without the uniform maybe, I
don't know where I would be.
But I have had a hard life with this pain. I got ripped apart in an
aircraft, and I survived, but it's so hard -- but I just come in here to tell
Page 239
February 22, 2005
you that I was sorry that I hollered at you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Thompson.
Thank you.
MR. THOMPSON: And Mr. Mudd, you need to honor that card
right there, sir. And you a good person, too.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item -- was that it
Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: That was the final speaker, yes.
Item #14A
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AND EXECUTE THE SITE
IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE GRANT
APPLICANT WITHIN THE BA YSHORE/GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE
REDEVELOPMENT AREA - GRANT APPLICANT, MS.
SHARON KING, REQUEST TO BE WITHDRAWN AND
CONTINUED INDEFINITELY - APPROVED DURING AGENDA
MR. MUDD: Okay. That brings us to item 14A, and this item is
continued from the February 8th, 2000 (sic) BCC meeting.
Recommendation to approve and execute the site improvement grant
agreement between the community redevelopment agency and the
grant applicant within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle redevelopment
area, and I believe that Mr. David Weigel will present this item. No?
MR. WEIGEL: I will? No, I will. I mentioned this morning,
Commissioners, that this item has two elements to it. One is Ms.
Sharon King, and I think you noted with the agenda changes this
morning that when you would hear this as a regular agenda item, as
you are now, that you're recognizing Ms. King having asked for a
withdrawal of her element of her application for award of the grant
Page 240
February 22, 2005
and that her -- her element be continued indefinitely.
The other element that's part of the -- part of this agenda item, the
Echo, LLC, is before you for approval, and there's nothing changed in
regard to the information that's provided for that.
So I know that Mrs. Fiala had indicated that she may wish to
speak about some issues that affect these grant arrangements
generally, and I'm here to offer some assistance as well, if you'd like,
in that regard. But the item is really now purely an approval item for
the Echo, LLC.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Should I talk about it before or after
we approve this?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How do you know we're going to
approve it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You better start talking now.
MR. WEIGEL: Probably good idea, yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is just by way of explanation
actually. Sharon King is on this committee. It's the Gateway Triangle
CRA advisory board, as well as a number of other people.
There's a grant process that has been established for the Gateway
Triangle as well as the Bayshore area, and this grant process
encourages anyone and everyone in those locations to somehow
improve the appearance of their house or their business, exterior --
exterior, not interior, but just exterior, so that to the eye it's more
pleasing, and they're hoping that by -- by awarding this grant to
different people, it will then encourage other people to come in.
Absolutely everybody in those areas are eligible. The only people
that can apply, of course, are people that live right there in the home
or own a business there. You wouldn't want to award this to somebody
out in Lakeland. But everyone is eligible to apply for this, and as yet,
to this point in time, no one has before been refused.
The problem that Sharon found was she, and three others, have
Page 241
~"'--"'---k..<
February 22, 2005
also applied for this and -- in trying to fix up and improve the
neighborhood. This was her first time to ever apply.
But she said, now, am I supposed to stay on this committee or get
off the committee? It's really going to be a detriment because it's open
to everybody. As long as you're not on the committee you can apply,
it appears.
And so I'm just really seeking some clarification. Is it available to
absolutely everybody or everybody but people on this committee?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, as we -- as we discussed a little bit
before a couple weeks ago relating to the Conservation Collier
Committee where we had two persons on committee that were asking
to be considered for a contractual relationship with the county, what
we found was that a review of the state statutes -- in the ethics code
area of the state statutes, Chapter 112.313, specifically sub 3, I
believe, indicated that a committee cannot do business with itself,
meaning the appointing board, and an advisory member, an advisory
committee, cannot do business with the committee that appointed it.
And in that case we noted that there is a statutory exemption,
which this board determined not to utilize. It required a four-fifths
vote to recognize that although there was a statutory conflict, that the
type of relationship that potentially would have occurred if one of
those two persons on that Conservation Collier Committee had been
selected and ultimately approved by the board. The board has the
statutory ability to exempt them and determine not to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But, David, does this have anything
to do --
MR. WEIGEL: This is the same.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean, they're bidding on a project.
MR. WEIGEL: This is essentially the same, because as explained
in the executive summary here, there is a requirement of the applicant
to provide 50 percent. And they, in essence, are entering into a
contract with the county, or in this case with the CRA, the appointing
Page 242
"--"..~
February 22, 2005
authority, to receive money.
Now, we've spoken of course with Ms. King and we've spoken
with the others as well, and the county attorney office, with their
permission, are preparing an inquiry for an opinion, informal opinion
initially, from the ethics commission to see if, in fact, there are factors
here that are compelling that would indicate that Ms. King and the
other person or two, in fact, are in a position where they may, in fact,
receive the grant and not be in a technical violation of the statute.
And this is not one of our local ethics ordinances. This is a
statute. And our office, we have spoken with the attorney with the
ethics commission, and he at this point recognizes, clearly with the
Conservation Collier situation, but also in application to this thing,
that there is a -- call it a probability of conflict, but they would like to,
and they certainly will, look at the specific facts that we provide them.
With the other members, by the way, it's less complicated in the
sense that one of those persons on the -- on the advisory board never
received the money even though that person received the approval by
the board. So there's, I think, some compelling information for that
person as well.
Another person was not on the board when the application was
made and, but for, you might call it, the shortfalls and problems that
came with the administration of these grants over a period of many
months, that person very likely would have received the money
pursuant to the grant award prior to ever coming on the board, but is
on the board -- was on the board when the money was received.
These are questions that we'll be asking of the ethics commission,
and we think that -- you know, we think that they will have something
relatively compelling to look at. We do not know how they will rule.
But it's ultimately no different than the other situation that this
board had before it before because it has to do with, in this case, the
appointing agency, the CRA, Board of County Commissioners sitting
as the CRA, agreeing contractually to give money to these people.
Page 243
,.,-----.,--
February 22, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But David?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm still having a little problem --
maybe it's just tough to get through this --
MR. WEIGEL: No
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- hard exterior here. In that
particular case only the people that bid were eligible to possibly win,
whereas, here, no matter who it is, they're all eligible, everyone.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, everyone is eligible, but it's not automatic
because this board has to approve it sitting as the CRA. And so,
although anyone can apply -- and arguably in that other one anyone
could apply, but they had to be approved by the Board of County
Commissioners as well.
In this case these people apply, and it's very perfunctory because
the money has been there, and apparently there haven't been so many
applications that overwhelm the money that's available, that the
history apparently is that everyone who has applied has received.
But that doesn't take away from the fact that the board has an
opportunity to deny if it wished to, and that mayor may not ultimately
be a factor that is determinative for the ethics commission.
But the safer course for all of these members is to get an opinion
from the ethics commission because if they have an opinion in their
pocket that says it's okay, well, then they're insulated.
If they have an opinion that says that it's problematic, then, in
fact, we will assist them in advising them as to what appropriate
measures might need to be taken. In fact, the ethics commission might
assist us with that as well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. One last question.
MR. WEIGEL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So being that this woman is not a
woman that has very much money anyway, and -- she applied first by
asking Patrick, is it okay if she applies, Patrick White __
Page 244
February 22, 2005
MR. WEIGEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and he said yes. And being that
other -- two other people had also applied, she decided to go forward.
Now, she had to pay her own money out because you have to at least
have a 50 percent match in order to be eligible.
MR. WEIGEL: True.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And she's really -- she's hurting a lot,
so should she drop off the committee now so that she is eligible, or
what is your advice?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think that that's another element that may
well allow itself, and that's -- it would be part of our quick turnaround
question to the ethics commission is, for the technical requirement,
technical requirement of not doing business with one's own committee
and through the appointing authority, if she were to drop off
temporarily, asset that she is to the committee, and come back on
again, if that would suffice from the technical requirement, that would
be, of course, a relatively easy and relatively painless answer. We just
don't have that answer yet. We hope to have it very soon.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I -- if I could. Let me --let me offer
you a personal opinion on this. And I can't imagine why anyone on an
advisory committee was advised that it's okay to apply for and receive
money from the government while on the advisory committee. I just
can't imagine why we would have provided that kind of advice to
anyone.
It's a -- you know, we are concerned about appearances, and if
the public gets the impression that the way to get a grant of some kind
to improve the appearance of your home is to get on an advisory
committee and, in essence, influence the award of the grant to yourself
-- now, I know that Sharon did not vote for that, but the mere
participation on an advisory committee gives people an advantage
which others do not have.
And I think it would be a really good thing if we were to advise
Page 245
February 22, 2005
all of our advisory committee members that they are not entitled to
any monetary gain as a result of participating on that -- or while
they're participating on the advisory committee.
Because it is troublesome that we've had these particular case as
well as two members of the green space committee applying for
contracts.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the -- Commissioner, the green space
committee people were advised from the get-go that it was
problematic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. WEIGEL: And they requested to go forward and see if the
board would consider the exemption as far as that goes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, okay.
MR. WEIGEL: This is a -- unfortunately it's a different situation
where Ms. King and others were not advised while on the committee
that it was inappropriate for them to make an application as everyone
else was who lived in the district.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I mean, it is a difficult problem, and -_
the position I've always taken -- the City of Naples ethics ordinance
would have specifically prohibited that. It was very clear.
But it is true that advisory committee members enjoy a special
relationship, and I think they are held to a different standard, and I
don't think they should be allowed to get any monetary gain as a result
of being on those advisory positions.
But, nevertheless, that's not even what we're voting on here
today, so let's vote on the item that's before us.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a proposal to approve the
award of a grant to Echo, LLC, Commercial Rehab.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There's a motion for approval from
Commissioner Halas.
Page 246
-~.
e__~__,,," ".~
,. .>~.,~,~"..,-~~-">
February 22, 2005
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second from Commissioner Fiala.
Does anyone disapprove of this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it just the -- it's revised, just
Echo, LLC?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just Echo, LLC.
MR. MUDD: Part one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, signify by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is -- what else?
Item #15
MR. MUDD: Sir, we're under communication at this particular
juncture.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. We'll start with
Commissioner Henning this time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nothing.
Page 247
February 22, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I did have something. Hold on
just a second --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, no.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- so I can find it. Yes, I do, and
purposely because I knew you wouldn't like it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good work.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's see. But it will take me a
second.
Yes. I wanted to discuss with you a concern that I have, just to
find out if anybody else has the same concern, because I'd like to
move forward --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- even just on my own -- shh, shh --
and that's 1-75. The 1-75 widening is going to -- they plan to widen it
from four lanes to six lanes as far as Golden Gate Parkway, and I was
wondering why they weren't doing the extra couple miles to Davis
Boulevard so that we can handle some of that traffic that's --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because it's in East Naples.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's right up there with the library.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, right with the library.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No library, no parks, no widening 1-75.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No affordable housing either.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But what I wanted to do was, even at
this late date, I wanted to jump in, and I was going to write Secretary
Stan --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Young, Dan Young.
MR. FEDER: Stan Can.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Stan Can, that's right, Stan Can --
and ask him about this and encourage him to finish the whole thing,
right down to Davis Boulevard, but I just wanted to bounce that off of
you guys and let you know what I'm going to do.
Page 248
'M.__,"~",~..~,
February 22, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think the letter that we sent to the
chairman of the transportation subcommittee of the House of
Representatives specifically asked for that to be done as well as an
interchange at Everglades Boulevard, so we sent a letter to them when
we had this meeting --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We said to take it further into Collier
County and we also asked for the 1-75 Everglades Boulevard
intersection.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, the further into the county meant
Davis Boulevard?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. That's as far as you can go. Then we
go --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: To the toll booths.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but I mean, we didn't specify.
But they'll know what that means, even up in Washington? Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, tell them.
MR. MUDD: We're going to tell them next week.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Heck, they've got all of their
equipment there. Everything's already -- the right-of-way is there.
Why not just push the thing through.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll ask them to build that library, too,
at the same time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you mind?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Folks, he always treats me this
way.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there anything else?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd just like to say that we
accomplished a lot today, and that I really mean this sincerely, I want
to congratulate Commissioner Coletta being a colonel of -- from
Page 249
-'-~
,~_.. .".._---,-=".~~
February 22, 2005
Kentucky, and it's a great honor for him to be bestowed with this, and
that obviously his constituents think an awful lot of him.
And that Jim Mudd and I will be going to Washington in regards
to the transportation issues, and I believe we're leaving Monday, from
what I just gathered on a note, late Monday, and we'll be back, I think,
on the 3rd. So we're going to address that. And I believe there's going
to be somebody from Swifty that's also going with us, and we're not
sure who else.
We had some local people that -- representatives, elected
representatives, but their schedule has got them booked to the point
where I think their time is going to be consumed up in Tallahassee.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner
Halas.
I yield my time to the chair.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. I'm going to need
it. At one of our previous meetings there was a member of the public
who had applied for a position on the productivity committee, and he
came in and spoke under the public comments section of our agenda,
and he alleged that his application had been -- not been handled
properly, and we have asked Ms. Filson to take a look at that, and I
wonder if you could comment on that, Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. I think --let me preface my comments
with, I think there's a lot of people who don't understand the sequence,
the process we go through to make the appointments.
The appointment we made on February the 8th, I had advised on
December 1 st with a December 26th deadline. Then I send it to staff
and to the elections office, ,and staff has 41 days to get back to me.
Staff got back to me on January the 25th. I did the executive
summary January the 26th and put it on the agenda. I received Mr.
Willkomm's application on January 26th in the afternoon.
He did call me on January 31st. I wasn't at my desk, so a message
Page 250
February 22, 2005
was in the system. I called him back, sent him an e-mail the same day
giving him a brief description of what the productivity committee
responsibilities are, and at that time told him I would keep his file in
abeyance until the next round came up.
And I think he was just confused, because when I talked to him it
was like two weeks later when I brought that back before the board,
and I guess he assumed that the wheels of government turn faster than
that.
But it takes like two and a half months to get someone appointed.
And he did write a letter of apology, and in that he also said that he
wasn't -- that wasn't explained to him, and so I may have not been
clear enough. And believe me, in the future, I will.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Bottom line, his application came
in a month late?
MS. FILSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: But I do have him in my file, and he will be in the
next batch of applicants, and the deadline for that press release is
March 4th, this Friday.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. That's all I
have.
MR. MUDD: Next Friday, March 4th, right?
MS. FILSON: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Okay, good.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Anybody have anything else?
MR. MUDD: Mr. Weigel, do you have something?
MR. WEIGEL: I do. And that's, in regard to the sheriffs appeal,
those wheels are going forward relatively slowly as well in the sense
that we, the county, as an appellee -- the sheriff being the appellant of
our budget -- as you know, the sheriff petitioned the administrative
Page 251
" . -~".,;.............. ."
February 22, 2005
commission, which is essentially the governor and his cabinet, but first
it goes to a hearing of staff people.
That has not been established yet as far as a date. We don't know
exactly when that will occur, but it will probably be more than a
month away, but it could be less than that.
And I would recommend that the board consider our chairman,
Commissioner Coyle, as the spokesperson on behalf of the board at
the staff hearing that will be held, again, at a date yet to be fixed, and
so that when Mr. Coyle presents himself, he can indicate that he is
before the -- before this group with the unanimous endorsement of the
Board of County Commissioners to be there to assist with the
explanation that the county is going to give, which will be a good one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you need a motion on that?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, a motion would be fine, or total
affirmation. I think that would be fine.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion made.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, it was a second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta then.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's good.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And a second by Commissioner Fiala and
Commissioner Halas, I think.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, by like sign.
Page 252
February 22, 2005
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous. I am the sacrificial lamb.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: Not at all, but thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you do it well.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm just wondering if we can
expedite this along so that we can get some resolution in this before
we start working on the 2006 budget process.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, the problem is the time schedule is
being set by the people in Tallahassee, and I think they're likely to
even delay it a little bit longer; is that right, David?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, we're tending to think so because that
group is also involved probably with the legislature from their aspect
from the executive branch. And so we can't say for sure, but there may
be a possibility that our hearing at the staff level may come in
subsequent to the legislature finishing their work. We just don't know
yet for sure, but we've filed everything that we need to file in response
to what the sheriff has filed, and are pretty much ready to go.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Very well.
Anything else?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the only thing I have is on your
visualizer. Annually you get a -- we take a part of the advisory boards
that you have this time. There's 11 this year. Every four years they
give you a briefing.
On your visualizer you'll see what's set up for March 8th and
March 22nd. We'll do a time certain, and each one of these chairs will
come before you and give you a short presentation of what their board
does, what -- that kind of thing, what they've done for you lately kind
of particular and what they've got in the future to address.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you will provide them guidance as
far as timing is concerned; a five-minute presentation will probably
work --
Page 253
IMIt O'W''''''''"''.. ...,....,.-,."._."."....___. .".. ^_ _,."."'~.~...._.,~_..,"'~_,~,,
February 22, 2005
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- from all-- each of them.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, and you have this read ahead. Wynona
sent it out on the 15th, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I've seen it. I just want to make
sure that there's some guidance with respect to time for each
presentation.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Could be a time certain.
MR. MUDD: That's all I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Thank you very much. We are
adjourned.
Commissioner Coletta moved, seconded by Commissioner Halas
and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent
and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND BA YVEST, L.L.C., A FLORIDA LIMITED
LIABILITY CORPORATION -AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16A2
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "REFLECTION LAKES AT
NAPLES PHASE 1A", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
Page 254
February 22, 2005
Item #16A3
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "TORINO & MIRAMONTE",
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY - AS
Item #16A4
COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.920 "BRISTOL
PINES COMMERCIAL EXCA V A TION", LOCATED IN SECTION
35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST - AS DETAILED IN
Item #16A5
CP-2005-02: PETITION CARNY-2005-AR-7164, MR. BENNY
STARLING, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OF THE IMMOKALEE
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, REQUESTING A PERMIT TO
CONDUCT THE ANNUAL HARVEST FESTIVAL 2005 FIESTA
OF FEBRUARY 24 THROUGH MARCH 6, 2005, AT 110 NORTH
ST
Item #16A6
CP-2005-03: PETITION CARNY-2005-AR-7177, MR. KEITH
LARSON, SUPERVISOR, OF THE GOLDEN GATE
COMMUNITY CENTER, REQUESTING A PERMIT TO
CONDUCT THE ANNUAL GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY
FESTIVAL ON FEBRUARY 24 THROUGH 27,2005, AT THE
Page 255
February 22, 2005
GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER LOCATED AT 4701
Item #16A7 - CONTINUED TO MARCH 22,2005 BCC MEETING
AMENDING THE COLLIER COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
FEE SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT-RELATED REVIEW AND
PROCESSING FEES AS PROVIDED FOR IN CODE OF LAWS
SECTION 2-11 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SllMMARY
Item #16A8
UPDATE REGARDING A PREVIOUS REQUEST MADE BY
DAVID E. BRYANT, ESQUIRE, TO FOREGO THE PUD
AMENDMENT PROCESS IN ORDER TO REDUCE DENSITY
FOR THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED H.D. DEVELOPMENT PUD
Item #16B1
TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED FUNDS (126) TO
PURCHASE A P ARA- TRANSIT BUS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$57,002 UNDER STATE CONTRACT #FVPP-02-CA-1 - TO
PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES TO THE ELDERLY
Item #16B2 - MOVED TO ITEM #10G
Item #16B3
A WORK ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $222,450 TO
Page 256
~_._~.-------' ---
February 22, 2005
AQUAGENIX FOR THE 2005 AUSTRALIAN PINE REMOVAL
PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 51501), UNDER CONTRACT 03-3568
AND APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER
FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $59,100 - AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16B4
AWARD BID #05-3754 FOR ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR "JACK
& BORE AND DIRECTIONAL BORE OPERATIONS" TO
AMERICAN BORING AND TRENCHING, INC. - FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF PIPING AND/OR SLEEVING UNDER
ROADWAYS
Item #16B5
PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF
RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
IMPROVEMENTS TO RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD
BETWEEN POLL Y AVENUE AND COLLIER BOULEVARD,
AND CONSTRUCTING NEW ENTRY WALL FEATURES AND
SIGNAGE FOR WING SOUTH, INC. AT THE SOUTHERN END
OF SKYWAY DRIVE (OFF RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD
(PROJECT NO. 60169). ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT:
$74,415.00 - FOR THE RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIRED FOR
Item #16B6
COORDINATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY,
AS COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR, AND
THE DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC. -
Page 257
February 22, 2005
TO SUPPORT THEIR 5310 GRANT APPLICATION FOR
VEHICLES FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSPORTING
INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE BEEN_DETERMINED DISABLED -
Item #16B7
COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION'S
(MPO) OPERATING BUDGET FOR TRANSPORTATION
DISADVANTAGED AND TRANSIT PLANNING ACTIVITIES
FOR FY 2004/05 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SllMMARY
Item #16B8
NEGOTIATION OF A CONTRACT WITH CENTER FOR
URBANIZED TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH (CUTR) FOR
THE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED SERVICE PLAN,
TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PARK & RIDE STUDY-
Item #16C1
CONTRACT AMENDMENT TO RFP 93-2121 WI HOLE MONTES
IN THE AMOUNT OF $185,000 AND A WORK ORDER
AMENDMENT TO MP-FT-01-1 WI MALCOLM PIRNIE IN THE
AMOUNT OF $106,284 FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY 16 MGD EXPANSION PROJECT
73949 - TO MEET THE GROWING SEWER SERVICE DEMAND
Item #16C2 - MOVED TO ITEM #10F
Page 258
-.-....-...-.---.-.---"--......-
February 22, 2005
Item #16C3
PURCHASE OF A TV TRUCK FROM COMMUNITY UTILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., (CUES, INC.) IN THE
AMOUNT OF $198,300 - FOR THE PURPOSE OF VIEWING
GRAVITY SEWER LINES TO INSPECT FOR INFILTRATION
Item #16C4
RESOLUTION 2005-93: SATISFACTION OF LIEN FORA SOLID
WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY
HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN
FULL FOR THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. FISCAL
Item #16C5
RESOLUTION 2005-94: SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR A SOLID
WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY
HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN
FULL FOR THE 1995 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. FISCAL
Item #16C6
RESOLUTION 2005-95: SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR A SOLID
WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY
HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN
FULL FOR THE 1996 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
Page 259
~'."'-~"'.__...
February 22, 2005
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. FISCAL
Item #16C7
SATISFACTIONS FOR CERTAIN WATER AND/OR SEWER
IMPACT FEE PAYMENT AGREEMENTS. FISCAL IMPACT IS
$114.00 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN - AS
Item #16C8
SATISFACTION OF A NOTICE OF CLAIM OF LIEN FOR
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE. FISCAL IMPACT IS
$18.50 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN -AS
Item #16C9
CONTRACTS 05-3681 "FIXED TERM INSTRUMENTATION
AND CONTROLS (I&C) ENGINEERING SERVICES"
(ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT $1,200,000) TO FOUR (4)
FIRMS - W/ CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE, INC., CAROLLO
ENGINEERS, P.S., HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C., AND RKS
Item #16C10
CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT TO FLORIDA POWER &
LIGHT COMPANY (FP&L) AS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE
POWER TO NEW PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY WELLS LOCATED
AT THE NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT
Page 260
February 22, 2005
PLANT (NCRWTP) AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $18.50,
Item #16C11
CONTRACT #05-3767 TO GULF STATES, INC. TO CONSTRUCT
THE WASTEWATER COLLECTIONS MASTER PUMP STATION
FACILITY REHABILITATIONS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $438,400,
PROJECT 72504 - TO IMPROVE THE RELIABILITY OF
Item #16D1
BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO REFLECT AN OVERALL
DECREASE OF $597 IN THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT
PROGRAMS AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE
CONTRACT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND SENIOR SOLUTIONS OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA D/B/A AREA AGENCY ON AGING-
Item #16D2
THE FY 2005 SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM GRANT IN
THE AMOUNT OF $586,400 - TO PROVIDE FREE NUTRITIOUS
MEALS DURING THE SUMMER TO COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16D3
COUNTY SPONSORSHIP IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000 FOR US
MILITARY APPEARANCES DURING JUL Y 1 THROUGH JUL Y
Page 261
___..____""",_.",_.,_,....e
February 22, 2005
5, 2005 - TO PROVIDE THE CITIZENS OF COLLIER COUNTY
WITH AN INDEPENDENCE DAY CELEBRATION BY VARIOUS
l.lS..MI.LI.IARS
Item #16E1
AWARD OF BID #05-3765 "ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR
PAINTING CONTRACTORS" FOR PAINTING OF COUNTY
FACILITIES TO SERVICE PAINTING OF FLORIDA, COVER-
ALL, INC., AND PERFECTLY PAINTED OF COLLIER COUNTY
AS A MULTIPLE AWARD UP TO $350,000 - FOR
COMPREHENSIVE PAINTING SERVICES TO ALL COLLIER
Item #16E2
REPORT AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS
AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD-APPROVED
CONTRACTS - FOR THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER 28, 2004
IHRilllGHl.ANl. Y 2R, 200~
Item # 16E3
TERMINATION OF VERIZON WIRELESS FROM CONTRACT
NUMBER 03-3551 FOR CAUSE AS PROVIDED IN THE
Item #16E4
BID #05-3787 "ON-CALL PLUMBING CONTRACTOR" FOR
PLUMBING REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE OF COUNTY
FACILITIES TO SHAMROCK PLUMBING & MECHANICAL,
Page 262
February 22, 2005
INC. AS PRIMARY AND UNITED MECHANICAL, INC., AND
FIRST CLASS PLUMBING OF FLORIDA, INC. AS SECONDARY.
ANNUAL CAPITAL AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES ARE
ESTIMAIED A L$SOO,OOO
Item #16F1
GRANT AWARD AND AGREEMENT ARTICLES FOR AN
ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS GRANT PROGRAM FOR THE
ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE RESCUE DISTRICT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$225,000, APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF A FIRE ENGINE
UTILIZING THE FLORIDA SHERIFFS BID #04-05-0824 AT A
TOTAL COST OF $250,000 AND APPROVE THE NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENTS - TO REPLACE A-TWENTY (20)
YEAR OLD, OUTDATED FIRE ENGINE - AS DETAILED IN
Item #16F2
PURCHASE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT OF TWO (2) ADDITIONAL DISASTER
ASSISTANCE RESPONSE TRAILERS (DARTS) AND FIVE (5)
PORTABLE GENERATORS FORA TOTAL OF $31,600 TO
INCREASE THE COUNTY'S ABILITY TO ADEQUATELY
SHEL TER EVACUEES DURING TIME OF EMERGENCY,
APPROVE UTILIZING BID #04-3617, EXPIRED 1/30/05 AND
APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING FUNDS
FROM AN OPERATING LINE ITEM OF CAPITAL LINE ITEMS -
Item #16F3
Page 263
. .--..,.-----_.~..
February 22, 2005
DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT TO
PURCHASE A NEW MOBILE COMMAND VEHICLE (MCV) TO
REPLACE THE EXISTING 1989 CONVERTED JOHN DEERE RV
UTILIZING AN EXISTING HENRY COUNTY, GA BID #SB-05-
21-111204-1, CONTRACT #HC-05-21 FOR A TOTAL COST OF
Item #16F4
ACCEPTANCE OF AN EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
(EMS) COUNTY GRANT AWARD FROM THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH IN THE AMOUNT OF $112,672.82-
TO IMPROVE AND ENHANCE THE COUNTY'S PRE-HOSPITAL
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FROM OCTOBER 1,2004
TO SEEIEMBER :iO, 200~
Item #16F5
OUT-OF-CYCLE FY2005 TDC CATEGORY "A" GRANT
APPLICATION, BUDGET AMENDMENT AND TOURISM
AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES FOR THE
DREDGING OF DOCTORS PASS PROJECT #90549 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $598,500 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARy
Item #16G1
INCREASE TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION GRANT AGREEMENT #407953-1-94-01
FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT (ERP) AT
THE IMMOKALEE AIRPORT AND A BUDGET AMENDMENT
Page 264
">-~.~~.._ . I' ._~---,._-"'-'. -~-
February 22, 2005
Item #16H1
COMMISSIONER FIALA REQUESTS REIMBURSEMENT TO
ATTEND THE MARCO ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY-
MARCO 40TH ANNIVERSARY-"MARCO SARI" AUCTION ON
FEBRUARY 26,2005 AT THE MARCO POLO RESTAURANT;
$100.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL
BllD.GET
Item #16H2 - MOVED TO ITEM #10H
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:
Page 265
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
February 22, 2005
FOR BOARD ACTION:
A. Minutes:
1. Environmental Advisory Council - Agenda for February 2, 2005Staff
Reports for February 2, 2005 Meeting - Wiggins Pass Hotel and Spa and
Coconillia PUD. Minutes of January 5,2005
2. Collier County Airport Authority - Minutes of January 10, 2005.
3. Vanderbilt Beach M.S.T.U. - Agenda for February 3,2005; Minutes of
January 6,2005.
4. Collier County Citizen's Corps Advisory Committee -Agenda for January
19, 2005,Minutes of August 25,2004; Minutes of September 15,
2004;Minutes of October 20, 2004; Minutes of December 13, 2004 and
Minutes of January 19,2005.
5. Development Services Advisory Committee - Minutes of January 5,2005.
a) Development Services Advisory Committee Budget & Operations
Sub-Committee - Minutes of January 12,2005
6. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee - Minutes of December 9,
2004.
7. Collier County Tourist Development Council - Minutes of May 24, 2004,
June 28, 2004, September 27,2004, and Minutes of October 25,2004.
8. Pelican Bay Services Division - Agenda for February 2,2005; Minutes of
January 5, 2005.
a) Budget Sub-Committee - Agenda and Minutes of January 19,2005
b) Clam Bay Sub-Committee - Agenda for February 2,2005;
Minutes of October 6, 2004.
9. Collier County Planning Commission - Agenda for February 3, 2005.
10. Collier County Library Advisory Board - Agenda for January 26, 2005;
Minutes of December 8, 2004.
H:DataIFormat
_._.~"..,........._~,_.."
11. Golden Gate Estate Land Trust Committee - Minutes of October 25,
2004.
12. Forest Lakes Roadway & Drainage M.S.T.U. - Agenda for February 9,
2005; Minutes of January 12,2005.
13. Bayshore Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda for February 9, 2005;
Minutes of January 12, 2005.
B. Other:
1) Ethics Commission Form 4A-Relevant to Agenda Items 12A & 12B for
February 8, 2005 BCC Meeting.
H:DataIFormat
February 22, 2005
Item #16K1
OFFER OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 73.032, FLA.
STAT., TO RESPONDENTS, BRADLEY DAMICO AND DARRYL
DAMICO ("RESPONDENTS"), IN THE AMOUNT OF $16,330.00
AS FULL COMPENSATION, EXCEPTING ATTORNEY'S FEES
AND COSTS, FOR THE ACQUISITION ARISING OUT OF THE
CONDEMNATION OF PARCEL NO. 134 IN COLLIER COUNTY
V. TERRY L. LICHLITER, ET AL., CASE NO. 03-2273-CA
(GOLDEN GATE PROJECT #60027)-AS DETAILED IN THE
Item # 16K2
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO MAKE A BUSINESS
DAMAGE OFFER TO SETTLE A CLAIM FOR BUSINESS
DAMAGES BY CIRCLE K STORES, INC. ASSOCIATED WITH
THE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 739 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF NAPLES, ET
AL., CASE NO. 04-3587-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT
Item #16K3
PROPOSALS OF SETTLEMENT FOR ENGINEERING COSTS
AND PLANNING COSTS AS TO PARCELS 739 AND 839 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. NANCY L. JOHNSON
PERRY, ET AL., CASE NO. 03-2373-CA (GOLDEN GATE
P ARKW A Y ROAD PROJECT 60027) - AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16K4
Page 266
.~,-,_."".,.-_.~- .-....-- -, - -. "~ ..'.._._.^',...._~,"',.-
February 22, 2005
AGREED ORDER AWARDING APPRAISAL FEES AS TO
PARCEL 153 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
JOHN F. SUDAL, ET AL., CASE NO. 02-5168-CA (IMMOKALEE
ROAD PROJECT 60018) - STAFF TO PAY THE SUM OF
Item # 1 7 A
RESOLUTION 2005-96: SE-2004-AR-6772, A RESOLUTION
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 04-326, THE LUTGERT
COMP ANIES PARKING EXEMPTION, BY PROVIDING FOR AN
AMENDMENT TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR DUE TO
THE INCORRECT REFERENCE TO THE C-4 ZONING DISTRICT
IN THE RECITALS AND OPERATIVE SECTIONS OF THE
RESOLUTION AND CHANGING THE REFERENCES TO THE
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2005-09: PUDZ-2004-AR-5611 SEACREST
SCHOOL, INC., REPRESENTED BY RICHARD YOV ANOVICH
OF GOODLETTE, COLEMAN AND JOHNSON, PA,
REQUESTING A PUD REZONE FROM "E" ESTATES AND "E"
ESTATES ZONING WITH AN APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE
FOR THE EXISTING SCHOOL FACILITY TO "PUD" PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING
SCHOOL FACILITY. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 7100
DAVIS BOULEVARD, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
~G OF :i9 4+/- ACRF,S
Item #17C - MOVED TO ITEM #8E
Page 267
""'"'"'~<._____ ,.,- . r' _^....
February 22, 2005
Item #17D
THIS ITEM IS BEING CONTINUED INDEFINITELY. AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 04-12, SECTION FOUR
ENTITLED EXEMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS FROM
CERTIFICATE REQUIREMENTS AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EEEECIIYEDAIF
Item #17E
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE MARCH 8, 2005
BCC MEETING. THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL
PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN IN AND EX PARTE DISCLOSURE
BE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS. PUDZ-A-2003-
AR-4942 - CONQUEST DEVELOPMENT USA, LC,
REQUESTING A PUD TO PUD REZONE FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD
(CR951) AND APPROXIMATELY 1 % MILES SOUTH OF
TAMIAMI TRIAL (US 41), FURTHER DESCRIBED AS SILVER
LAKES, IN SECTION 10 & 15, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE
Page 268
~. ........"..~-_.-"~."....~.....,~_.,_..- --.-".. ..~. ..---....---
February 22, 2005
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6: 16 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
~w.~
FRED W. COYLE, Chairman
ATTEST,:, "'.
DWIGW::rE'. ßRPCK, CLERK
,~_. "!-. _ .o¡> ~.~¡,
~- '- .. '
,.>-dr' ,. ~' "", '.oJ
'C, ','
, oW C
~~; ... ." .e'. ",~;. \ '. /_. . . '~':'¡
;\~14~~.~'~~* C . trtlln' s
'. f!.{'~~·ba 1,.
These minutes approved by the Board on J1J.g(Ch
(I
presented I...,./' or as corrected
~;;¿ I d(k'J}1lS
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 269
--'~.'-