BCC Minutes 05/10/2005 R
May 10, 2005
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, May 10, 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
Derek J ohnssen, Office of the Clerk of Courts
Page 1
-,---"'''.
~-_.-
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
tì"
",,",
<:'"
' -- (
-;,.,-_...::::...;=:;~~,
AGENDA
May 10, 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: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED REQUIRES
THA T ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING
ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
Page 1
May 10, 2005
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5)
MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMP AIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Major Ron Smith, The Salvation Army
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. April 6, 2005 - BCC/District 5 Town Hall Meeting
C. April 12, 2005 - BCC/Regular Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. Advisory Committee Service Awards
1) Dale Lewis, Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee
2) Glenn Tucker, Tourist Development Council
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation to designate the month of May, 2005 as Human Trafficking
Awareness Month and Zero Tolerance for Traffickers in Collier County. To
be accepted by Lucas Benitez & Laura Germino, Coalition ofImmokalee
Page 2
May 10, 2005
Workers and Anna Rodriguez & Ana Alonso - Immigrant Rights Advocacy
Center.
B. Proclamation to designate the month of May, 2005 as Mental Health Month.
To be accepted by Petra Jones, Executive Director for Mental Health
Association of Collier County, Inc.
C. Proclamation to designate the week of May 9 through May 14, 2005 as
Salvation Army Week. To be accepted by Major Ron Smith, Dr. Don
Thomsen, Mr. David Brown, Mr. Henry Caballero, Mr. Mel Forbis, and Mr.
Herb Cambridge and Wanda Moore, of the Salvation Army.
D. Proclamation to designate May 20, 2005 as YMCA Project Graduation Day.
To be accepted by Mr. Brandon Dowdy, Executive Director for the Greater
Naples YMCA.
E. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners issue a
Proclamation designating Friday, May 20,2005 as Bike to Work Day in
Collier County. To be accepted by Norm Feder, Collier County
Transportation Administrator, and Ted Litwin, Chairman for Pathway
Advisory Committee.
F. Proclamation to recognize the month of May, 2005 as Civility Month. To be
accepted by Collier County Attorney, David Weigel.
G. Proclamation to designate the month of May, 2005 as Public Service
Recognition Month. To be accepted by Jim Mudd, Collier County Manager,
and Leo Ochs, Deputy County Manager.
5. PRESENTATIONS
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request by Keith Tompkins to discuss traffic signal on
Collier Boulevard at the Eagle Creek entrance.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 D.m.. unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Page 3
May 10, 2005
-^.-.,.-,.......-.---
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Public Hearing to consider Adoption of an Ordinance Establishing the
Heritage Bay Community Development District (CDD) pursuant to Section
190.005, Florida Statutes.
B. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. The petition was continued from the
April 26. 2005 BCC hearin!! at the applicants request. This item
requires that all participants be sworn in and ex-parte disclosure be
provided by Commission members. Petition: PUDA-2004-AR-6786
Vanderbilt Partners II, LLC, represented by Richard Y ovanovich, of
Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A., requesting to amend the Cocohatchee
Bay PUD document for the limited purpose of amending the Bald Eagle
Management Plan and related references in the Planned Unit Development
(PUD) document. The subject property, consisting of 532 acres, is located in
Sections 8, 16, 17 & 20, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida.
C. This item was continued from the April 12. 2005 BCC meetin!! and is
requested to be further continued to the June 28. 2005 BCC meetin!!.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2003-AR-4493,
Santa Barbara Landings PUD, requesting a rezone from Residential
Multiple-Family-6 (RMF-6) to Residential Planned Unit Development
(RPUD) to be known as the Santa Barbara Landings PUD for property
located at the southeast corner of Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard,
in Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
D. This item was continued from the April 26. 2005 BCC Meetin!!. This
item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure
be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2004-AR-6258, Elias
Brothers Communities at Palermo Cove, Inc., represented by Dwight
Nadeau, of RWA, Inc., and Chuck Basinait, of Henderson, Franklin, Starnes
& Holt, P .A. requesting a rezone from the Agriculture zoning district to the
Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district to be known
as Palermo Cove PUD, consisting of 131 acres and a maximum of 524
residential dwelling units. The property is located north of Wolfe Road, west
of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida.
Page 4
May 10, 2005
E. This item to be heard at 4:00 p.m. Approve a Resolution authorizing the
submission of a low interest State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan application
to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for the construction
of the Reclaimed Water Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project, and to adopt
the document called "Collier County Aquifer Storage and Recovery
Facilities Plan, March 2005" to allow the County to avail itself of a low-
interest SRF loan for this Project, 74030.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Utility Authority.
B. Appointment of members to the Collier County Coastal Advisory
Committee.
C. Appointment of member to the Development Services Advisory Committee.
D. Appointment of members to the Educational Facilities Authority.
E. Appointment of members to the Health Facilities Authority.
F. Appointment of members to the Industrial Development Authority.
G. Appointment of member to the Tourist Development Council.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Please note that this item will be heard on June 7. 2005 at 9:00 a.m.
Recommendation to conduct the Conservation Collier Annual Public
meeting to provide an update on the program's past activities, for soliciting
proposals and applications, to provide direction to staff for making
procedural changes to the ordinance and to develop an exceptional benefits
ordinance. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development &
Environmental Services Division)
B. Recommendation to approve a Developers Contribution Agreement with
Wal Mart, WCI Communities, Inc., and Stonebreak Homes LLC to design
and construct six lane improvements on SR 951 from US 41 south to north
of Henderson Creek in advance of and as an extension to the County's
current six laning project from US 41 to Davis Boulevard. (Norman Feder,
Page 5
May 10, 2005
Administrator, Transportation Services)
C. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution authorizing the acquisition by
Condemnation of non-exclusive, perpetual utility and maintenance
easements, temporary construction easements, and access easements for the
construction of a sewer force main, raw water mains and well sites required
for the South County Regional Water Treatment Plant (SCR WTP) Reverse
Osmosis Wellfield Expansion to 20MGD, Project Number 708921, at a cost
not to exceed $3,050,000. (Jim DeLony, Administrator, Public Utilities)
D. Recommendation to approve a budget amendment for $2,000,000 to pay the
Agency for Health Care Administration for the county's share of Medicaid
Billing for a period ofFY 00 through FY 05. (Marla Ramsey, Administrator,
Public Services)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Grand
Lely Drive, Phase Two", approval of the standard form Construction
and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
Page 6
May 10, 2005
2) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of "Terracina at the
Vineyards" The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately
maintained.
3) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of "Jubilation". The roadway
and drainage improvements will be privately maintained.
4) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Black
Bear Ridge - Phase I", approval of the standard form Construction
and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
5) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of "Grey Oaks Unit
Fourteen". The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately
maintained.
6) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Valencia
Lakes Phase 7-A", approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
7) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with John S. and Alberta R. Fallowfield for 1.14 acre under the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to
exceed $37,850.
8) Recommendation to name certain Acquired Conservation Collier
Preserves.
9) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "A viano at
Naples", approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
10) Recommendation to approve a refund of the $1,000 continuance fees
paid by Tabernacle of Bethlehem Church for Petitions CU-2003-AR-
4326 and V A-2003-AR-4327,Dieudonne and Lunie Brutus,
petitioners, represented by Ronald F. Nino, AICP, of Vanasse Daylor
Page 7
May 10, 2005
when the petition was continued by the petitioner from a March 8,
2005 Board of County Commissioners hearing date to March 22, 2005
11) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "II
Regalo", approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
12) Recommendation to approve the Release and Satisfaction of Lien for
the following cases: Gladys Rodriquez, 2000-027; Helen Stormer,
2004-71; Keith T. Heckman, 2004-074; Barbara Galloway, 2003035;
Barbara Galloway, 2002-393; Barbara Galloway, 99-029; Barbara
Galloway, 2002-394; Barbara Galloway, 2003-385; Barbara
Galloway, 2003-445; Erik H. & Astrid V. Seffer, 2581; Steve
Riambau & Gildete Dasilva, 2567; Olga Hirshhorn & Thomas G.
Schessler, 2223; Olga Hirshhom & Thomas G. Schessler, 2351;
Aurora Bros., 1917; Aurora Bros., 2275; Douglas & Sandra Carter,
40328-018; Aurora Bros., 2383; Douglas & Sandra Carter, 2011;
Douglas & Sandra Carter, 2121; Douglas & Sandra Carter, 1919;
Douglas & Sandra Carter, 1885; Bayshore Land Development LLC,
2556; Felix Lerch Family Trust, 70915-021; Felix Lerch Family
Trust, 1674; Felix Lerch Family Trust, 1540; John D. Endres, 2453;
Salvatore & Antionette Cavataio, 2590; Salvatore & Antionette
Cavataio, 2535; Gary Rookstool & Eleanor Porras, 1761; Gary
Rookstool & Eleanor Porras, 51130-049; Caspian Builders, LLC,
2231/2350; William D. Collins, III, Trustee, ITF Florida Sunbelt
Mortgage Co., 90-05-02297; Kelly Condon, 2413; William Mae
Postelle, 2000-315; William Mae Postelle, 98-410; Rene Damphier,
SO 134810; Joseph Harrington, CO 2004091215; Michael Ryon, CO
2004081106; Amber-Lou Investments Co., CO 2004100765.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to award Bid No. 05-3803 to Haskins, Inc. for
construction of phase two of the Immokalee and Fifth Street Drainage
Improvement Project, Project Number 51725 in the amount of
$767,158.00.
2) Recommendation to approve a Work Order in the amount of
$556,825.00 to Quality Enterprises USA, Inc. for construction of the
Westlake Outfall Improvements Project (Project No. 510056), in
Page 8
May 10, 2005
accordance with the General Underground Utility Contract No. 04-
3535 and a budget amendment in the amount of $239,832.50.
3) Recommendation to approve award of a construction contract with
Quality Enterprises USA, Inc. for intersection improvements in the
amount of $249,197.23 on Bluebill A venue/ III th Avenue at
Vanderbilt Drive, Bid No. 05-3797
4) Recommendation to approve a change order in the amount of
$73,289.40 to Quality Enterprises USA, Inc. amending the Pine Ridge
Subdivision Emergency Culvert Replacement Project (Project No.
510201) construction contract and to approve the associated budget
amendment including an additional $5,000.00 contingency amount.
5) Recommendation to allow the Transportation Division to advertise
and receive bids for proposed roadway and drainage improvements to
Goodlette-Frank Road from Golden Gate Parkway to Pine Ridge
Road, Project No. 60005. Estimated fiscal impact is $12,000,000.
6) Recommendation to approve the Purchase Agreement and Accept the
Warranty Deed for the fee simple acquisition of property from Lori
Hamilton, Successor Trustee of the TPJ, Inc. Irrevocable Trust for the
purpose of providing Wiggins Pass Outfall with an unobstructed
sheetflow of water in the area known as the Wiggins Bay Basin.
Project 512122. ($186,525)
7) Recommendation to approve a Developer Agreement between Del
Mar Retail Center, LLC and The Board of County Commissioners
providing for construction of and reimbursement for a portion of the
Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project (Project No. 51101) in
the amount of$146,855.00.
8) Recommendation that the Board reject bid #05-3780 "Motorola
Central Control Irrigation Supplies and Services".
9) Recommendation to award RFP #05-3773 "Annual Contract for
Roadway Contractors" to the following contractors: Bonness, Inc.;
Better Roads, Inc., and; Quality Enterprises USA, Inc. (estimated
annual amount $1,750,000)
Page 9
May 10, 2005
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to approve Work Orders UC-023 in the amount of
$281,000 Kyle Construction Incorporated for the system rehabilitation
of the potable water system in the Gulf Harbor area, Project Number
710102.
2) Recommendation to approve Work Orders UC-029 in the amount of
$246,000 Kyle Construction Incorporated for the system rehabilitation
of the potable water system serving Heron Avenue in the Naples Park
area, Project Number 710102.
3) Recommendation to approve release of eight (8) Civil Judgments
issued for litter against Bruce Reed Schwartz deceased, in the amount
of $4,000.00. Fiscal Impact is approximately $148.00 to record the
eight (8) Judgments.
4) Recommendation to award Contract 05-3783 "Fixed Term
Geographic Information Systems
Services" to five (5) firms.
5) Recommendation to approve Work Order UC-I04 under Contract 04-
3535 in the amount of$248,884.75 to Quality Enterprises USA, Inc.,
for construction of the Collier County and City of Naples Water
System Interconnect at Davis Blvd., Project 70040.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve McDonald's, Inc. as a sole source
supplier of breakfast sandwiches for the Summer Food Service
Program, with an estimated Fiscal Year 2005 expenditure of$32,200.
2) Approve a modification in the amount of $9,345.90 to Purchase Order
# 4500038389 with Newspaper Printing Company, Inc. for printing of
the Recreation Guide.
3) Recommendation to approve Change Order #8 in the amount of
$119,772 for additional construction observation, permit
modifications, and reimbursables for North Naples Regional Park,
Page 10
May 10, 2005
-"--,"-
Contract #992947.
4) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to recognize and
appropriate revenue of $18,035 for Domestic Animal Services.
5) Recommendation to authorize rental of trucks from Enterprise Rent A
Car at an estimated cost of $40,000 for the transportation of food to
recreation and school sites under the Summer Food Grant Program.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to recognize
revenues and appropriate expenditures in the Purchasing Department
budget.
2) Recommendation to approve conveyance of an Easement to Florida
Power & Light Company (FPL) in order for it to provide electric
power to the new North Naples Government Center, located on
Orange Blossom Drive immediately west of the main Library, at a
cost not to exceed $18.50, Project Number 52534.
3) Recommendation to approve the utilization of State contracts for
purchases of furniture and floor coverings over twenty-five thousand
dollars.
4) Report and ratify staff-approved change orders and changes to work
orders to Board-approved contracts.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommendation to approve Change Order No.1 to Contract # 05-
3753 with Snyder Industries, Inc. for Maintenance Dredging of
Wiggins Pass in the amount of$141,072.
2) Recommend approval of Change Order #1 for a $45,000 increase to
Contract #01-3271 to Work Order #HM-FT-05-03 to Humiston &
Moore for additional construction monitoring services for the Wiggins
Pass dredging project 905221.
Page 11
May 10, 2005
3) Recommendation to approve Amendment to 2004/2005 Tourism
Agreement Between Collier County and Paradise Advertising
Agency, Inc. Regarding Emergency/Disaster Relief Advertising Plan
for $450,000 to be used for Emergency Advertising and Promotion
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Approve
the Purchase of a Ford Tractor, Model TS 115A from Landig Tractor
Company, Inc. in the amount of$53,918.42 under Florida State
Contract #765-900-04-1
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) This item continued from the April 26. 2005 BCC Meetin!!.
Recommendation to approve Contract Amendment A-2 involving
Contract #03 - 34 73 "Consultant Services for Preparation of a Land
Development Overlay for Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Community
Redevelopment Area (CRA) District".
2) Approve a budget amendment for $161,000 to increase budgeted
revenues and budgeted expenses for the sale and purchase of aviation
fuel at Marco Island Executive Airport.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners and the
Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) adopt an
interlocal agreement between Collier County and the CRA
establishing policies for the CRA pertaining to purchasing, personnel,
contracting authority, and budgeting.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the
Marine Corps League of Naples First Annual Press Day Luncheon on
Wednesday, April 20, 2005 at the Elks Lodge; $13.00 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. Attended the 2005
Collier County Sand Dollar Awards & Tourism Week Luncheon
Page 12
May 10, 2005
Celebration on Wednesday, May 11,2005 at the Naples Beach Hotel
& Golf Club; $22.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel
budget.
3) Commissioner Henning requests Board approval for reimbursement
for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attend the
2005 Collier County Sand Dollar Awards & Tourism Week Luncheon
Celebration on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 at the Naples Beach Hotel
& Golf Club; $22.00 to be paid from Commissioner Henning's travel
budget.
4) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for payment for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner to
attend the David Ellis's Farewell Function on May 9, 2005 at the
Collier Building Industry Association's office. $10.00 to be
reimbursed from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
5) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
to attend the Economic Development Council Membership Mixer
hosted by Edison College on May 4, 2005 at Edison College Collier
Campus. $15.00 to be reimbursed from Commissioner Coletta's travel
budget.
6) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for payment for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner to
attend the David Ellis's Farewell Function on May 9, 2005 at the
Collier Building Industry Association's office. $10.00 to be
reimbursed from Commissioner Halas' travel budget.
7) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended CBIA
Executive Director, David Ellis' Going Away Party on Monday, May
19,2005 at CBIA Offices; $10.00 to be paid from Commissioner
Fiala's travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous Items to File for Record with Action as Directed.
Page 13
May 10, 2005
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Recommendation to approve a Resolution between the Board of
County Commissioners and Sprint Telephone Company of Florida.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners make a
determination of whether the purchases of goods and services
documented in the Detailed Report of Open Purchase Orders opened
from April 2, 2005 through April 15, 2005 serve a valid public
purpose and authorize the expenditure of County funds to satisfy said
purchases. A copy of the Detailed Report is on display in the County
Manager's Office, Collier County Government Center, 3301 East
Tamiami Trail, 2nd Floor, W. Harmon Turner Building, Naples,
Florida.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to Approve an Agreed Order for Payment of Expert
Fees in Connection with Parcel 180 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier
County v. Big Corkscrew Island Fire District, et aI., Case No. 02-
2218-CA (Immokalee Road Project #60018). Additional Cost to
County is $7,050.00.
2) Recommendation to Approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement and a
Stipulated Final Judgment to be Drafted Incorporating the Same
Terms and Conditions as the Mediated Settlement Agreement in the
Amount of$13,250.00 for the Acquisition of Parcels 129 and 729 in
the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Terry L. Lichliter, et al. Case
No. 03-2273-CA (Golden Gate Parkway Project No. 60027).
Additional Cost to County is $7,281.00 after Credit for Amount
Deposited.
3) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to Approve
an Agreed Order for Payment of Engineering Fees in the Amount of
$3,200.00 in Connection with Parcels 131A and 131B in the Lawsuit
Styled Collier County v. Stonebridge Country Club Community
Association, Inc., et aI., Case No. 04-3588-CA (Immokalee Road
Project #66042).
Page 14
May 10, 2005
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Approve a
Settlement and Release With Respect to Certain Claims Made by
Better Roads, Inc. in Connection with the Work Under Contract No.
02-3413, i.e., Livingston Road Phase III - Pine Ridge Road to
Immokalee Road Project 62071.
5) Recommendation to Approve Settlement in the Lawsuit Entitled Rose
Guinane vs. Collier County Board of Commissioners Filed in the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, Case
No. 03-2243-CA-THB, for $15,000.00.
6) Recommendation to Approve a Settlement Prior to Trial in the
Lawsuit Entitled Nicholas Marsit Jr., et al. vs. Collier County in the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, Case
No. 03-1232-CA for $42,500.00 Plus Mediation Costs.
7) Recommendation for Approval of an Inter local Settlement
Agreement and Mutual Release between Collier County and the City
of Naples in reference to Florida Department of Administrative
Hearings, Case No.04-1 048GM and Second District Court of Appeal
in Lakeland, Florida, Case No. 2DCA# 2D05392.
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. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. V A-2005-AR-6983;
Daniel and Gail Barthel, as agent and owners requesting an after-the-fact
variance from Section 2.07.00 and Section 4.02.22 of the Land Development
Page 15
May 10, 2005
Code (LDC) for relief from the required front yard of 25 feet to allow a 3.3-
foot front setback and from the required side yard of 5 feet to a setback of
1.2 feet to accommodate a shade trellis over a parking area, as shown on the
survey. The subject property is described as Section 18, Township 52 South,
Range 27 East, Block A, Lot 2, Goodland Isles, Collier County, Florida, Plat
Book 6, page 7.
B. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-A-2003-AR-
3585,Wilson Boulevard Center LLC represented by William L.Hoover, of
Hoover Planning & Development, Inc., requesting a rezone from a Planned
nit Development (PUD) zoning district to a Commercial Planned Unit
Development (CPUD) zoning district known as the Wilson Boulevard
Center PUD. the rezoning would have the effect of amending the PUD
Ordinance. A proposed change would allow the water management area to
be located within a portion of the 75-foot wide buffer along the eastern and
southern boundaries of the subject PUD. The property to be considered for
the rezone is located on the southeast corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and
Wilson Boulevard within a Neighborhood Center of Golden Gate Estates, in
Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. this
property consists of 7.15 acres.
C. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida applying the Annual Mid-Cycle
Indexing adjustments to amend the Water and Sewer Impact Fee rate
schedule, which is Schedule Two of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the
Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances (The Collier County
Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance No. 2001-13, as amended) and
providing for an effective date of June 1, 2005
D. This item has been withdrawn. Public Hearing to consider Adoption of an
Ordinance establishing the Napoli Community Development District (CDD)
pursuant to Section 190.005, Florida Statutes.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
Page 16
May 10, 2005
May 10, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The Board of County -- we have a live
mike, right?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, you do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The Board of County Commissioners
meeting is now in order.
Would you please stand for the invocation by Major Ron Smith
of the Salvation Army.
MR. SMITH: And now our gracious Heavenly Father, it's with
pleasure that we approach your throne this morning and thank you for
this wonderful day. When we think of all that you do for us and
continue to do, our hearts are grateful.
But, Lord, we seek guidance and wisdom, and we pray for the
leaders of our county, that you would give them the insight to those
things that need to be done, the important things of this community.
We thank you, Lord, that we can serve you through this area,
bless the things that are said and done here, for we ask this in our
Lord, Jesus Christ's, name, amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Please join me in the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Item #lB
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ASSIST IN CINCO DE MAYO
FESTIVAL IN IMMOKALEE - APPROVED -
Mr. Mudd, do you have SOl11e changes to our agenda this
morning?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Mr. Weigel, do you have anything to add past the change sheet?
MR. WEIGEL: Nothing to add past the change sheet. I \vill
Page 2
May 10, 2005
mention to the Board that in the past the Board has authorized County
Attorney to assist and go for:ward with the implementation of
Ordinance 70-11 for the Cinco de Mayo Festival, and I would ask that
the Board authorize me to, again, on behalf of the County, go forward
and assist that organization and event, which is to be scheduled for
this next Saturday in Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Coletta,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
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.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Looks like you have it, David.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: And no further comment on the agenda.
Item #2A
REGULAR CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Agenda changes, Board of County
Page 3
May 10, 2005
Commissioners' Meeting, May 10th, 2005.
Add item 4H. It's a proclamation declaring the month of May
2005 as Internal Auditor Awareness Month, and that's at staffs
request.
:\Jext item is to continue item 8A to the May 24th, 2005, BCC
meeting, and that's a public hearing to consider adoption of an
ordinance establishing the Heritage Bay Community Development
District pursuant to Section 190.055 of the Florida Statutes, and that's
at staffs -- that's at the petitioner and staffs request, because I received
an e-mail from the petitioner also that he would like to continue.
Next item is add item 9H, and that's a -- that's to contract sheriff
service for traffic control on Bluebill and Gulfshore Drive during
high-use times, and that item is being added at Commissioner Halas'
request.
Next item is item 16A 7. The first line of the fiscal impact should
read, the total cost acquisition will not exceed $37,850, rather than the
$40,000 that's on the page, and that change is at staffs request.
The next item -- the next item is a little peculiar. We don't do
this very often, but this is an agreement between the Board of County
Commissioners and the Bayshore Triangle CRA, of which all the
board members are part. There's just different chairmen for both
organizations. Commissioner Coyle is the chairman of the Board of
County Commissioners as we know, and Commissioner Fiala is the
chairman of that particular CRA.
So we have an identical item that's on 16A13 and at 16G3. And
16G3 is the CRA title, and 16A is under Community Developments,
and I'll read that particular item.
It's a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
and the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency, CRA,
adopt an interlocal agreement bet\veen Collier County and the CRA
establishing policies for the CRA pertaining to purchasing personnel,
contracting authority, and budgeting. And, again, it's a companion
Page 4
._~'M~"·"~'____~_·_··
May 10,2005
item to 16G3, and that item was added at staffs request.
The next item is item 1.6F3. The tourism agreement with
Paradise Advertising was not included in the agenda packet but has
been provided to the commissioners, the clerk, and the county
manager and has been made available to the public for review.
Also note that the board meeting referenced under considerations
should read April 26th, 2005. That executive summary reads April
25th, 2005. It was off by one day. That's at staffs request.
The next item is item 17B, and this has two parts to it. Section
4.9.K of the PUD document should read: At the time of the first
application for site development, the petitioner shall contribute $5,000
to the Collier County School District for acquisition and/or
construction of a public school bus stop to be located as close as
possible to the subject site and be subject to approval by the
Department of Alternative Modes of Transportation, and that's at
staff s request.
The other item is, the following text should also be added to the
PUD document as section 3.4.1.(4): Prior to commencing clearing of
the subj ect property, the developer shall erect a six-foot high chain
link fence along the northern boundary of the abutting residential
home to the south extending eastward from approximately the Wilson
Boulevard right-of-way to the northeast corner of this first residential
lot, then southward 350 (sic) feet to the southeast corner of the second
residential home located to the south of the Wilson Boulevard Center
PUD, and then westward to approximately the Wilson Boulevard
right -of- way.
Such fence shall also be extended from its eastern boundary
approximately 350 (sic) westward until it connects to an existing fence
running between the first of two residential homes to the south.
And that request was at -- or that agreement was made between
the people that live there with Commissioner Coletta and the -- and
the petitioner, and that came in late last night, first thing this morning,
Page 5
--.-,.-,---....-,.--.-.---.
May 10, 2005
so that's why we got it on.
The next item is item 17C, and that's continued to May 24th,
2005, and that's basically the annual mid-cycle indexing adjustment to
amend the water and sewer impact fee rate schedule. And again, that
itenl is continued to May 24th, 2005.
We have two time certain items today on today's agenda.
Item 8B will start at 10 a.m., and that's a petition,
PUDA-2004-AR-6786, Vanderbilt Partners II, LLC, represented by
Richard Y ovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman, and Johnson, P .A.,
requesting to amend the Cocohatchee Bay PUD document for the
limited purpose of amending the Bald Eagle Management Plan and
related references in the planned unit development document.
The subject property consisting of 352 acres is located in
Sections 8, 16, 17, and 20, Township 48 south, Range 25 east, Collier
County, Florida.
The next item that's time certain is item 8E, and that will be heard
at four p.m., and that's to approve a resolution authorizing the
submission of a low-interest state revolving fund loan application to
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for the
construction of the reclaimed water aquifer storage and recovery
project and to adopt a document called Collier County Aquifer
Storage and Recovery Facilities Plan, March of 2005, to allow county
to avail itself of a low-interest SRF loan for this project, which is
74030.
That's all I have, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you, very much, County
Manager.
I \vould now like to get ex parte disclosure and any changes or
questions concerning the regular, consent, or sumn1ary agenda.
Confine the ex parte disclosures only to the summary and consent
agenda.
Commissioner Halas?
Page 6
May 10,2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I don't have any additions or
corrections to today's agend~, and on the summary agenda, I do not
have any disclosures on either of the subjects that are going to be
brought forth today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much,
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I have no changes to the
agenda, and on the summary agenda, 17B, I have had phone calls,
e-mails, meetings, and been very involved in this for a number of
years.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have no changes to the
agenda. And on the summary agenda, 1 7 A, I met with the petitioners
and I was -- that was it on 17 A. On 17B, I also met with the
petitioner's representative.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no ex parte on today's
summary agenda.
I would like to remove two items from the consent agenda. One
is 16 Charlie 3. The other one is 16 David 2.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the amended language on
the Wilson Boulevard PUD center, I'm trying to find it, but I
remember reading that they were supposed to provide a wall next to
the residential, so --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- why would we tell them that
they have to put a chain linked fence around __ ,
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, I can answer that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
Page 7
May 10, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The reason being is that they're
concerned of the safety of the residents, because they're the ones that
are bordering right up to the property, and so they asked the petitioner
to put up chain linked fence to avoid people crossing the wall and
con1ing into the property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, so you want a -- you want a
wall and a chain link fence?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. That was the
deal between the developer and residents there to be able to guarantee
their safety.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Any razor wire or anything like
that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, that might -- that's a
suggestion, but a little bit late now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any further questions?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No further changes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
And for me, I have ex parte disclosure on 17B. I did meet with
the representatives of the petitioner. I have information in my backup
file if anyone wishes to take a look at it.
Do I have a motion for approval of today's regular, consent, and
summary agenda as amended in --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- with --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have not heard if these two
items that I asked to come off the consent on the regular agenda --
MR. MUDD: 16C3 will be 10E, and 16D2 will be lOF.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what I mean by as amended.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion by Commissioner
Page 8
May 10, 2005
Halas and a second by Commissioner 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: Then the regular, consent, and summary
agenda is approved.
Page 9
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
Mav 10. 2005
Add Item 4H: Proclamation declaring the month of May 2005 as Internal
Auditor Awareness Month. (Staff's request.)
Continue Item 8A to the Mav 24. 2005 BCC MeetinÇl: Public Hearing to consider
Adoption of an Ordinance Establishing the Heritage Bay Community Development
District (CDD) pursuant to Section 190.055, Florida Statutes. (Staff's request.)
Add Item 9H: Contract Sheriff service for traffic control on Bluebill and Gulfshore
Drive during high use times. (Commissioner Halas request.)
Item 16A7: The first line of the Fiscal Impact should read: "The total cost of
acquisition will not exceed $37,850 (rather than $40,000) . . .. (Staff's request.)
Add Item 16A13: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners and
the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) adopt an interlocal
agreement between Collier County and the CRA establishing policies for the CRA
pertaining to purchasing, personnel, contracting authority and budgeting.
(Companion to Item 16G3) (Staff's request.)
Item 16F3: The Tourism Agreement with Paradise Advertising was not included in
the agenda packet but has been provided to the Commissioners, the Clerk, the
County Manager, and has been made available to the public for review. Also, note
that the Board meeting referenced under "Considerations" should read April 26,
2005. (Executive Summary reads April 25, 2005.) (Staff's request.)
Item 17B: Section 4.9.K of the PUD document should read: At the time of the
first application for site development, the Petitioner shall contribute $5,000.00 to
the Collier County School District for acquisition and/or construction of a public
school bus stop to be located as close as possible to the subject site and be
subject to approval by the Department of Alternative Modes of Transportation.
(Staff's request.)
Also, the following text should be added to the PUD document as Section 3.4.1.(4):
(4) Prior to commencing clearing of the subject property, the developer shall
erect a 6-foot high chain link fence along the northern boundary of the abutting
residential home to the south extending eastward from approximately the Wilson
Boulevard right-of-way to the northeast corner of this first residential lot, then
southward 330 feet to the southeast corner of the second residential home located
to the south of the Wilson Boulevard Center PUD and then westward to
approximately the Wilson Boulevard right-of-way. Such fence shall also be
extended from its eastern boundary approximately 330 feet westward until it
connects to an existing fence running between the first 2 residential homes to the
south.
Page 2
Changes to BCC Agenda May 10, 2005
Item 17C continued to the Mav 24.2005 BCC Meetinçw: Recommendation to adopt
a Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida
applying the Annual Mid-Cycle Indexing adjustments to amend the Water and
Sewer Impact Fee rate schedule, which is Schedule Two of Appendix A of Chapter
74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances (The Collier County
Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance No. 2001-13, as amended) and providing for
an effective date of June 1, 2005. (Staff's request.)
Time Certain Items:
Item 8B to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Petition: PUDA-2004-AR-6786 Vanderbilt
Partners II, LLC, represented by Richard Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman &
Johnson, P.A., requesting to amend the Cocohatchee Bay PUD document for the
limited purpose of amending the Bald Eagle Management Plan and related
references in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) document. The subject
property consisting of 352 acres, is located in Sections 8, 16, 17 & 20, Township
48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
Item 8E to be heard at 4:00 p.m. Approve a Resolution authorizing the submission
of a low interest State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan application to the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection for the construction of the Reclaimed
Water Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project, and to adopt the document called
"Collier County Aquifer Storage and Recovery Facilities Plan, March 2005" to
allow the County to avail itself of a low-interest SRF loan for this Project 74030.
May 10, 2005
Item #2B and #2C
MINUTES OF THE APRIL 6, 2005 BCC/DISTRICT #5 TOWN
HALL MEETING AND MINUTES OF THE APRIL 12, 2005 BCC
RECìlrLi\R MEETING - APPROVED
Now, do I have a motion for approval of the agenda minutes of
the April 6, 2005, BCC, District 5 Town Hall meeting and the April
12th, 2005, regular meeting?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- by Commissioner Fiala, 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: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hearing none, it is approved
unanimously.
Item #3
SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD
MEMBERS)-PRESENTED
Okay. County Manager, \ve have some employee and advisory
board l11embers to recognize this l11oming?
Page 10
May 10,2005
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, we do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE:. Okay.
MR. MUDD: And these advisory board member awards, there's
two, and they're five-year awards.
And the first is to Mr. Dale Lewis. He's served for five years on
the Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee. If Mr. Lewis
could come forward, please.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do these go to the recipients?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Congratulations. Thank you very
much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much for your
servIce.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Lewis, if we could get a picture.
Thank you, sir.
(Applause. )
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Our next awardee, and the last awardee, is Mr.
Glenn Tucker, and he's served for five years on the Tourist
Development Council.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You get to keep this.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you for your service, Glenn.
MR. MUDD: Thank you, Mr. Tucker.
(Applause ).
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION TO DESIGNATE THE MONTH OF MAY, 2005
AS HUMAN TRAFFICKING AWARENESS MONTH AND ZERO
Page 11
_.,,~~.--,.'"-
May 10, 2005
TOLERANCE FOR TRAFFICKERS IN COLLIER COUNTY -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Sir, that brings us to our first proclamation, and
that's ·4J1L It's a proclamation to designate the month of May 2005 as
Human Trafficking Awareness Month and Zero Tolerance for
Traffickers in Collier County, to be accepted by Lucas Benitez and
Laura Germino, the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, and Anna
Rodriguez and Ana Alonso, Immigrant Rights Advisory Center --
Advocacy Center, excuse me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And this proclamation will be presented
by Commissioner Coletta.
MR. MUDD: Ifwe could all come on up here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And it's, indeed, an honor to be
able to read this proclamation today.
Whereas, human rights are protected by the law of the land and
must be respected by all; and,
Whereas, human trafficking, or modem-day slavery, is an
inhuman and evil violation of human rights; and,
Whereas, the federal government estimates that between 18,000
and 50,000 people are trafficked in the United States each year; and,
Whereas, the State of Florida and local government encourages
the efforts of local agencies and organization who protect against the
violation of human rights, especially victims of human trafficking;
and,
Whereas, in Collier County, the Immigration (sic) Rights
Advocacy Center and the Coalition of Immokalee Workers has led the
outreach and assisted rescuing victims of trafficking; and,
Whereas, the Immigration -- Inm1Ïgrant Rights Advocate's (sic)
Center and the Coalition of Immokalee Workers has been publicly
recognized by the federal agencies for their continued support to the
alTest and prosecution of traffickers and the violators of human rights,
Page 12
May 10,2005
and the most important, the rescue of victims in Southwest Florida;
and, .
Whereas, the Immigrant Rights Advocacy Center and the
Coalition of Immokalee Workers recognized the needs of community
awareness and education to assist in the creation of local support for a
zero-tolerance campaign against traffickers and violators of human
rights in Collier County.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that the month of May 2005
be designated as Human Trafficking Awareness Month and zero
tolerance for traffickers in Collier County.
Done and ordered this 10th day of May, 2005, Fred Coyle,
Chairman.
And I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAI&.\1AN COYLE: Motion for approval by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Halas.
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, by like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's get your picture.
(Applause.)
MS. RODRIGUEZ: I just wanted to thank the ~ollier County
Commissioners for taking this first step and let you know that you are
the first county in the State of Florida to take human trafficking
Page 13
May 10, 2005
seriously.
We have been -- our gC?al is to rescue the victims. These victims
are tortured; these victims are brought here against their will. These
victims are lured to come here and be victims of torture trafficking
victitns.
I'd like to thank you all, and also, I want to recognize the work
that the Coalition -- probably they're in traffic -- that the work that the
Coalition has done also for the past years, we have been able to rescue
-- the Coalition has rescued over 23 victims, and I have rescued over
14 right now between Collier and Lee County, and there are more.
And this is not an Immokalee issue only. Human trafficking is here,
west of 951. Thank you.
F or the record, Anna Rodriguez.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
ItetTI #4B
PROCLAMATION TO DESIGNATE THE MONTH OF MAY, 2005
AS MENTAL HEALTH MONTH - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next proclamation is 4B. It's a proclamation to
designate the month of May 2005 as Mental Health Month, to be
accepted by Petra Jones, Executive Director of Mental Health
Association of Collier County, Inc.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And this proclamation will be presented
bv Commissioner Fiala.
-'
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Whereas, mental health is essential
to everyone's overall physical health and emotional well-being; and,
Whereas, mental illness will strike one in five adults and children
in a given year, regardless of age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or
economic status; and,
Whereas, people who have mental illnesses can recover and lead
Page 14
.....
m.~'____·"~·_"· -
May 10,2005
full productive lives; and,
Whereas, an estimated ,two-thirds of adults and young people
who have mental health disorders are not receiving the help that they
need; and,
Whereas, the cost of untreated and mistreated mental illnesses
and addictive disorders to American businesses, governments, and
families has grown to $113 billion annually; and,
Whereas, community-based services that respond to individual
and family needs are cost-effective and beneficial to consumers and
the community; and,
Whereas, the National Mental Health Association, the Mental
Health Association of Collier County, and its national partners
observe Mental Health Month every May to raise awareness and
understanding of mental health and illness.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the month of May
2005 be designated as Mental Health Month in Collier County,
Florida, and call upon the citizens, government, agencies, public and
private institutions, businesses and schools in Collier County, Florida,
to recommit their -- to their community increasing awareness and
understanding of mental health and the need for appropriate and
accessible services for all people who have mental illnesses.
Done and ordered this 10th day of May, 2005, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Fred Coyle, Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Fiala for
approval.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 15
May 10, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIA-LA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(1\10 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It carries unanimously.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you would like to say something,
please step to the podium.
DR. WILLIAMS: Thank you very much. We appreciate the
County Commissioners' awareness of mental health issues throughout
the year, as well as in the month of May. We appreciate this
opportunity to bring further awareness to our community regarding
mental health issues.
We certainly have a strong commitment from our community,
but we can always use a greater awareness, we can always use greater
support, and we urge our community to continue to do the best they
can treating the people in our community that need mental health
servIces.
I think it's particularly appropriate that we join this month of may
with people that are concerned about human trafficking, and I really
appreciate the opportunity to work for that issue as well. So thank you
very much. Dr. Don Williams.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. The Collier County
Commissioners, by the end of this day, probably will need your
services as much as anybody.
DR. WILLIAMS: Thank you very much. We'll be there.
(Applause.)
I ten1 #4C
Page 16
May 10, 2005
PROCLAMATION TO DESIGNATE THE WEEK OF MAY 9
THROUGH MAY 14, 2005.AS SALVATION ARMY WEEK-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next proclamation is proclamation 4C. It's a
proclamation to designate the week of May 9th through May 14th,
2005, as Salvation Army Week. To be accepted by Major Ron Smith,
Dr. Don Thomsen, Mr. David Brown, Mr. Henry Caballero, Mr. Mel
Forbis, and Mr. Herb Cambridge, and Wanda Moore of the Salvation
Army.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And this proclamation will be presented
by Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning. It gives me great
pleasure to read this proclamation. This organization, through thick
and thin, any type of disasters, they're always there.
And I'd like to start out by saying:
Whereas, the Salvation Army is motivated by a love of God and
a love for mankind; and,
Whereas, the Salvation Army serves as a symbol of compassion
and an active participant in the provisions of service to thousands of
men, women, and children in Collier County; and,
Whereas, the Salvation Army Naples Corps provides spiritual
counseling and basic human necessities to the needy and the hurting
on a daily basis; and,
Whereas, the Salvation Army has touched the lives of so many
by providing programs and services to residents for more than 20
years; and,
Whereas, the Salvation Army played a vital part in the
emergency disaster services after Hurricane Charley, Frances, Jean,
and Ivan; and, .
Whereas, the Salvation Army provides its services with
con1passion to all people in need without discrimination.
Page 1 7
~,-_.--
.--~----^"".-
May 10, 2005
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that May 19th (sic)
through 14th, 2005, be designated as Salvation Army Week, and urge
all citizens to join us in honoring the dedicated officers, employees,
volunteers, and supporters of the Salvation Army.
Done and ordered this day -- this 10th day of May, 2005, Board
of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Fred W. Coyle,
Chair.
And Chairman, I move that we accept this proclamation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second 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 carries unanimously.
Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Keep up the good work.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're still with them after all these
years. Bless your heart. It's good to see you. It's been so long. I
didn't even recognize you.
(Applause.)
MR. SMITH: Major Ron Smith, Salvation Army. It's a pleasure
to be here to receive this proclamation.
We thank the County Commissioners in their leadership in
working with the Salvation Army over the years and making --
helping us make it what it is today.
Page 18
------
May 10,2005
We look forward to many years ahead and serving this
community and serving our ,Lord and the great ministry that's afforded
to us today.
I just want to recognize that our chairman of our board, Dr.
Thomsen, has been serving for 22 years on the Salvation Army
Advisory Board in this community. He told me the other day, he's
only missed two meetings, and that's not bad after 22 years. I know
that all the County Commissioners can say that as well this morning,
Doctor.
But he was just given the Salvation Army Life Member Award
for Collier County for this great ministry, and I want to just publicly
thank him for all he has been doing over the years. Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
DR. THOMSEN: The Salvation Army cannot serve in Collier
County without the help of the volunteers and the financial help that is
given to us by the people of Collier County. And we thank you so
very, very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Dr. Thomsen.
(Applause.)
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION TO DESIGNATE MAY 20,2005 AS YMCA
PROJECT GRADUATION DAY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next proclamation is 4D. It's a proclamation to
designate May 20th, 2005, YMCA Project Graduation Day. To be
accepted by Mr. Brandon Dowdy, the executive director of the Greater
Naples YMCA.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And this proclamation will be presented
by Commissioner Henning.
Page 19
May 10, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Whereas, the YMCA's a
not- for-profit organization with the mission to build strong kids,
strong families and strong communities; and,
Whereas, the YMCA of Collier County has been providing a safe
place for graduation (sic) high school seniors to celebrate a milestone
of graduation of 19 years; and,
Whereas, the YMCA of Collier County is celebrating its 20th
anniversary of Project Graduation on May 20th, 2005, by hosting
more than a thousand graduating seniors from nine area high schools;
and,
Whereas, the YMCA of Collier County has fostered the
partnership of parents, school administrators, local sheriffs and police
departments and businesses by providing an entertaining and safe
Proj ect Graduation event for graduates; and,
Whereas, the YMCA of Collier County's Project Graduation has
ensured that there are no alcohol or drug-related deaths on graduation
night in Collier County.
Therefore, be it proclaimed that the Board of Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida, that May 20th, 2005, be designated as Project
Graduation Day, or YMCA Project Graduation Day.
Done in this order, 10th day of May, 2005, and signed by the
chair.
Chair, I move that we approve this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second 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.
Page 20
May 10,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Thank you. .
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I used to volunteer, too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Still can.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You get your picture taken.
Would you like to say something?
MR. DOWDY: I'll say a quick thank-you on behalf of the
YMCA and all the other organizations of Collier County Public
Schools, Collier County Sheriffs Office, Naples Police Department,
and all the generous community organizations and businesses that
helped to make this program such a success on our 20th anniversary. I
want to say thank you for the commission support.
I also have a couple bags up here with some T-shirts for this year.
The T-shirts are printed from a drawing that we do from the local
high schools where the students do an entry, so we have the winner
printed on the back of the shirt each year, and they win a monetary
prize. So another thank-you, and thanks for all the support from the
community.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item # 4E
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FRIDAY, MAY 20, 2005 AS
BIKE TO WORK DAY IN COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next proclamation is 4E. It's a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners issue a
proclamation designating Friday, May 20th, 2005, as Bike to Work
Day in Collier County. To be accepted by Norman ~eder, Collier
County Transportation Administrator, and Ted Litwin, who's the
Chairman for the Pathways Advisory Committee.
Page 21
--,.._-".,""""',....-
May 10, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And this proclamation will be presented
by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And only rightly so, since the
20 years I've moved to Florida, I've actually worn out three bikes.
These are the older coaster type bikes, the big, wide wheels, and
guarantee you the large seats on them. One gear.
Whereas, for more than a century, the bicycle has been an
important part of the lives of most Americans; and,
Whereas, today millions of Americans engage in bicycling
because it is a viable and environmentally friendly form of
transportation, an excellent form of fitness, and provides quality
family recreation; and,
Whereas, Collier County actively encourages biking as an
important mode of transportation in preserving its quality of life; and,
Whereas, the Naples Pathway Coalition has formed to improve
the system of -- system of biking and to educate the public about
bicycling and to promote safe bicycling for recreation and
transportation; and,
Whereas, the Collier County Alternate Transportation modes has
been active in efforts to increase opportunities for bicycling as an
activity and mode of transportation through its alliance with the
Metropolitan Planning Organization's Pathway Advisory Committee.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the month of May be
designated as Bike to Work Month, and Friday, May 20th, 2005, be
designated as Bike to Work Day. Done in this -- ordered this day, the
10th day of May 2005, Fred Coyle, Chairman.
And I make a motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- for approval by Commissioner
Coletta, second by whom?
Page 22
May 10, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Biker Halas.
CHAIRMAN COYLE.: Oh. How many bikes have you worn
out?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Only one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. 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 passes unanimously.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Norm?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ted, you want to say something?
MR. LITWIN: I'd be pleased. First of all, I want to thank the
Commissioners for recognizing Bike to Work Day. By doing so,
you're supporting the pathway system throughout the Collier County.
At our April meeting of the Pathway Advisory Committee, each
men1ber was given the results of a survey which was just completed as
to the roads and needs of our pathways in this county.
The results of the survey show, which in number are 527 roads
without any dead-end roads, and they included -- are included in what
they call a system of A through F for grading our pathways in this
county .
At this time, when this report was submitted to us, which is about
a year old, there was nine A-rated roads for sidewalks or pathways,
there was 31 B's, and there was only 59 C's; 325 we~e D, E, and F.
Commissioners, we have a lot of work to do to make this Collier
County pedestrian friendly. We must work to make it more friendly as
Page 23
May 10, 2005
a team, and I think that will be very possible.
Safe pathways provide opportunities for citizens to walk, to bike,
to jog, and for the handicapped to move about to enjoy this wonderful
climate. This will improve our way of life in Collier County.
Thank you for your support, and thank you for the petition, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Mr. Litwin.
(Applause.)
Item #4F
PROCLAMATION TO RECOGNIZE THE MONTH OF MAY, 2005
AS CIVILITY MONTH - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next proclamation is 4F, and that's a
proclamation to recognize the month of May 2005 as Civility Month,
to be accepted by Collier County Attorney -- the Collier County
Attorney, David Weigel.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it will be presented by
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, it's an honor to
read this proclamation and strive to accept the guiding principle of the
proclamation.
Whereas, an open exchange of public discourse is essential to the
democratic system of government; and,
Whereas, the cornerstone of democracy, Americans have the --
observed the certain rule of behavior generally known as civity (sic);
and,
Whereas, civity (sic) derives -- is a derivative from the Latin
word civitas, meaning cities and civis, meaning citizens behavior
worthy of citizens living within a community or in a common -- with
others; and,
Whereas, display of anger, rudeness, ridicule, impatience, and a
Page 24
'-'
May 10, 2005
lack of respect of personal attacks detract from the open exchange of
ideas, prevent the fair discu~sion of issues and can discourage
individuals from participating in government; and,
Whereas, civility can assist reaching consensus on diverse issues,
allows for a mutual respect, ongoing relationships (sic); and,
Whereas, civility can uplift our daily lives and make it more
pleasant to live with an organization -- organized society; and,
Whereas, cities, counties, and local government law, section of
the Florida Bar, urges the adoption of the pledge of civility by all
citizens in the State of Florida.
Now, for, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, that the month of May be -- is
proclamated (sic) as Civility Month and calls upon the citizens to
exercise civility towards each other.
Done in this order, 10th day of May.
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second 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: Thank you. Very much. It passes
unanimously.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you again.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. .
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll try and smile and be civil every
day.
Page 25
May 10, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you going to say something?
MR. WEIGEL: I am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Commissioners. David Weigel,
County ~Attorney.
I'm pleased and flattered that this proclamation has come up for
the past few years and once again this year. It became a project with
the Florida Bar, the local government law section, several years ago,
and they asked the counties and the county attorneys to see if they
could bring that forward through their respective commissions.
Ours eagerly picked it up and created a proclamation for this
particular measure. The importance is not merely that the County
Cttorney be civil to everyone, both the client board and the client
departments with whom we work, but additionally it's a proclamation
urging civility of all of us as we work together through the
government processes, and perhaps it will spill over into the daily
lives as well.
Again, I appreciate very much the opportunity to be addressed
through the proclamation. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, David.
(Applause.)
Item #4G
PROCLAMATION TO DESIGNATE THE MONTH OF MAY, 2005
AS PUBLIC SERVICE RECOGNITION MONTH - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next proclamation is item 4G. It's a
proclamation to designate the month of May 2005 as Public Service
Recognition Month. To be accepted by myself, Jim Mudd, Collier
County Manager, and Leo Ochs, Department County Manager.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I will present this proclamation.
Page 26
May 10, 2005
Whereas, millions of Americans are served every day by public
employees providing a wid~ range of services; and,
Whereas, public employees take not only jobs, but oaths; and,
Whereas, many public employees, such as police officers,
firefighters, military personnel, healthcare professionals, and others,
risk their lives each day in service to the people of the United States;
and,
Whereas, public employees include: Teachers in our schools,
nurses to administer vaccines, computer technicians to pay our social
security and Veteran's benefits, unemployment checks and food
stamps, safety inspectors and operators to ensure the security of our
water and wastewater plants, food inspectors to guarantee the safety of
our grocery purchases, laborers to maintain our roads and bridges,
transportation employees to see us safely to our destinations by bus or
train, all the other people who provide the diverse services required by
the American people of their government; and,
Whereas, without these government employees at every level,
continuity would be impossible in a democracy that regularly changes
its leaders and elected officials.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the month of May
2005 be recognized as Public Service Recognition Month, and that all
citizens are encouraged to recognize the accomplishments and
contributions of government employees at all levels of federal, state,
county, and municipal government.
Done and ordered this 10th day of May, 2005, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Fred Coyle, Chairman.
Commissioners, I make a motion that we accept this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
Page 27
"-_.~---""
May 10, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
C()MMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's unanimous.
Thank you very much, gentlemen.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Feels funny being on the receiving
end, doesn't it?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You thought nobody appreciated you,
right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Leo.
Do you know how to do this?
MS. FILSON: Smile.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you want to say something?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Jim?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I'm honored to accept--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Set the timer.
MR. MUDD: -- this proclamation for all of those people that you
mentioned in the proclamation, from the federal, state, and local
governments, and as this button says, public service, together we do
make a difference.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Jim.
(Applause.)
Item #4H
PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE MONTH OF MAY, 2005 AS
INTERNAL AUDITOR AWARENESS MONTH - ADOPTED
Page 28
May 10, 2005
MR. MUDD: Commi~sioner, the next proclamation is
proclamation 4H. It's a proclamation declaring the month of May
2005 as Internal Auditor Awareness Month, and I believe -- Derek,
you're going to accept this, I hope, or somebody else?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've got some people here, I think. It's
going to be accepted by Crystal Kinzel, Pat Blaney, and John Ferrell
of Internal Audit Department of the clerk's offices, and Bruce Brister,
a guardianship auditor, and it will be presented by Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
Whereas, internal auditors help their organizations meet their
objectives by monitoring risks and ensuring controls that are in place
and adequate to mitigate those risks; and,
Whereas, internal auditors along with the board, management,
and the external auditors are a governance cornerstone and help their
organizations comply with new legislation and regulations for
enhanced governance; and,
Whereas, the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), an international
professional association with global headquarters in Altamonte
Springs, Florida, has over 100,000 members in more than 100
countries. The Institute is the acknowledged leader in certification,
education, research, and technological guidance for the professional
world and for the profession worldwide; and,
Whereas, the counties of Collier, Lee, Charlotte, Hendry, and
G lades have 68 IIA members in the Southwest Florida chapter; and,
Whereas, Article VIII of the Constitution of the State of Florida
designates, the Clerk of the Circuit Court shall be ex officio clerk of
the Board of County Commissioners, auditor, recorder, and custodian
of all county funds; and, ,
Whereas, the Institute of Internal Auditors is celebrating
International Internal Audit Awareness Month in May in the year
Page 29
May 10, 2005
2005.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the month of May
2005 be designated as Internal Auditor Awareness Month, and invite
the citizens of Collier County to join me in recognizing professional
internal auditors for their contribution.
Done and ordered this 10th day of May 2005, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Fred W. Coy Ie, Chainnan.
And, Mr. Chainnan, I make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Fiala
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: It's unanimous. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You all look like auditors, you know
that? They have a certain look about them.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
MS. KINZEL: Commissioners, for the record, Crystal Kinzel.
I'd like to thank the board for this proclamation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Crystal.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next item, Commissioner, is --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Mudd, Commissioner Fiala has one
other thing she'd like to say, okay.
COMMMISSIONER FIALA: If you don't mind. I have a notice
here. Mickey Mandel of Marco Island died recently very
unexpectedly. He was 49 years old, and he was a moving, thriving
Page 30
May 10,2005
force on Marco Island. And I just wanted to say, on behalf of Marco
Island, that we all offer our .deepest sympathy to his family.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: And he was also a member of our Public Vehicle
Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry, yes, a member of
PV AC, uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Commissioner Fiala.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY KEITH TOMPKINS TO
DISCUSS TRAFFIC SIGNAL ON COLLIER BOULEVARD AT
THE EAGLE CREEK ENTRANCE - A MOTION WAS MADE
FOR THIS ITEM TO BE BROUGHT BACK AT THE JUNE 8, 2005
BCC MEETING, AND A LETTER WILL BE WRITTEN BY TI-IE
CHAIRMAN TO FDOT INVITING THEM TO ATTEND THE BCC
MEETING - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: The next item, sir, is item 6A, and it's a public
petition request by Keith Tompkins to discuss traffic signal on Collier
Boulevard at the Eagle Creek entrance.
MS. FILSON: While Keith's coming up, I just want to say that
someone registered to speak under this item, and we don't take public
speakers under public petition, but you're welcome to speak under
public comment.
MR. TOMPKINS: Thank you. Thank you, Commissioners.
Thank you for giving me time to spend with you this last week as well
to discuss the issues with you.
r gave you the detail in the meetings. I want to, focus a couple of
main points today.
For the record, Keith Tompkins. I'm the property manager from
Page 3 1
May 10,2005
the Eagle Creek Community Association, and I'm speaking on behalf
of about 450 homes. Upwa~ds of about 8- or 900 call Eagle Creek
home. Some of them are here today. If you would let yourselves be
known. There's a group of people from Eagle Creek here.
The issue that we're talking about here is not one of mere
convenience, but more life safety. I want to make three main points
briefly; two of them deal with live safety, the third deals with the
design aspects of the intersection.
First and foremost, the life safety with respect to East Naples Fire
Department. Yesterday I had a conversation with Chief Schank
regarding the decision of the FDOT to move the proposed intersection
from Eagle Creek Drive to a point south 7- or 800 feet, I believe it is,
south toward Marco Island, close our median opening and close the
median opening in front of Holiday Manor.
The only way the chief, frankly, knew any decision had been
made was because of -- a homeowner in Eagle Creek had called him a
week or so earlier, and then our follow-up conversation. He was not
consulted the least bit prior to the decision being made by FDOT.
They didn't ask his opinion. They had not notified him of their
decision either.
They have decided to provide access from the south into Eagle
Creek, an opening to left into Eagle Creek from the south. The fire
station is located south of Eagle Creek.
That does not satisfy the chief. I asked his permission to use his
remarks me today. That does not satisfy the chief.
Every trip in is an emergency. Not every trip out is an
emergency. But every trip out of Eagle Creek, given that they're
going to have to go south before they go north, would be an
emergency because they're transporting somebody. So when they need
it the most, that extra delay and the wear and tear, if you will, the
impact on the patient, is not something he is happy about. He much
would prefer the intersection to be where he has ingress and egress
Page 32
May 10,2005
from one point, not having to travel south before he goes north. But,
again, no input from him w~atsoever prior to the decision.
Second life safety aspect to this, Eagle Creek residents
themselves. Today it is a dangerous trip across two lanes of traffic
doing 50 miles an hour to get to use the median opening to go north.
When this decision's made, the -- if this decision stands by
FDOT, people of Eagle Creek would come out, have to cross three
lanes of traffic in a matter of a hundred feet in order to make aU-turn
to go north.
The people after -- when they begin to approach Eagle Creek
Drive from the intersection of951 and 41, are approaching 50, 60
miles an hour at that point. It is a dangerous -- it is a dangerous trip,
to say the least.
We do right now have a back gate. There is uncertainty about
that back gate. We have no assurances right now how our access is
going to be from the back gate, whether we're going to be able to go
out to 41 from the back gate or actually be routed back over to 591.
I mean, this trip and is this U-turn to go north may be, in the end,
the only egress out of Eagle Creek to go north. Again, a dangerous
situation.
Thirdly, the people of Eagle Creek and what their expectations
were and the design aspects. The current PUD for Eagle Creek, which
has been in place for over 20 years, has always stated that the traffic
light would be at Eagle Creek Drive. So the people of Eagle Creek
have done everything they've been asked to do. There sits the PUD in
black and white stating the traffic light would be there when warrants
call for the light.
It's also, from what I understand, in the PUD, the Wal-Mart
project, the Artessa Point PUD at the same location. Wal-Mart has
been through -- the Wal-Mart engineers have been tl?Iough the design
aspects of this. They've come up with construction details. They've
done everything they've been asked to do. The decision then was
Page 33
May 10, 2005
made to move the intersection by FDOT.
Other signals in this c<?unty are close to major intersections and
they work. The best example of that is Price Street, which is about the
same distance from U.S. 41 and 951 as this intersection would be if it's
at Eagle Creek Drive. That intersection works. That intersection does
not fail. That intersection does not cause U.S. 41 and 951 to fail.
I maintain, and we maintain, frankly, as do the engineers and the
experts that are working for Wal-Mart that our intersection works, and
it will help the intersection of U.S. 41 and 951.
There is an argument here between engineering studies. The
conclusions differ slightly 15 to 18 years about the performance of
each of the intersections~ That is a lot -- that is a high price to pay for
decades of dangerous access, poor access in ingress and egress from
the fire department because of something that might happen some 18
years from now to the intersection.
Lastly, I want to close with this, there are intangibles that
paperwork and formulas do not show. If you remember the original
design of U.s. 41 and 951. When that intersection opened, it was a
disaster. It was poorly designed. It wasn't laid out well. There were
accidents. It was dangerous. It did not work.
The designs for that, the decisions made on that, FDOT in
Bartow. Your county staff had to go out there and fix that
intersection. Those people are capable of making bad decisions of
adhering to -- and taking the advice of studies that do not work. They
are capable of all of that. I am here today to ask that you not let this
happen again.
Today I ask for your support of my petition to instruct the staff to
approach FDOT to relocate the light, for them to reconsider their
decision, locate the light at Eagle Creek Drive and 951.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Keith. We have, perhaps,
two alternatives here. The purpose of public petition is to ask the
Page 34
May 10,2005
board to schedule this for a formal hearing on the next agenda, and we
could do that if there are cOinmissions who wish to see this come
back.
There is another potential alternative, and that is if we could get a
majority of commissioners to provide guidance to the chair to send a
letter to FDOT outlining the reasons why this -- this process -- why
this traffic light should be moved. That would provide, perhaps, a
faster resolution for the matter.
But I'll leave it up to the Commissioners to tell me which they
prefer.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The bigger issue is the state is
saying that we have the ability to weigh in on this issue about the
location of the traffic light, but other cases on state roads they're
saying, no, it doesn't matter what the county says.
So if we're going to do anything, I would like to have a
discussion on this at a future meeting. I'm all in favor of that, because
I think it presents a bigger picture. If we're going to be consistent, we
should be -- the state also should be consistent on whether we have
input or not on the state roads and the infrastructure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think we always have the right of
input. I don't think the state can deny us that. What they can do is
disagree with us, but I think the input is a given. But okay.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes. I was just going to suggest
that we do the same thing, that we write them if all the commissioners
approve. But we can wait for two meetings. I don't think that that
decision has to be made immediately, right? Or not two meetings, I
mean two weeks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It probably doesn't, bu~ what it means is
that the petitioners will have to come back here and wait and sit and
have us go through this discussion. If we agree that they deserve an
Page 35
May 10, 2005
opportunity to petition FDOT, then I think we ought to take the action
to do it. .
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How about this? Because
Commissioner Henning made a point there that, you know, we're also
thinking about future. How about if we write that letter right now so
that we that thing on the road to support the Eagle Creek effort, but
then that we do bring this up on a future agenda for other
developments that might need lights so that then we do establish some
kind of a policy.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to bring this back at a later
date so that we all get the big picture of exactly how we're going to
address traffic here in Collier County.
I think what we need to do is see if our Transportation
Department can work with FDOT and, of course, if there's a stalemate,
then I think we need to air the reason that there's a problem with
where the light is going to be located at this point in time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I have no problem with
bringing it back for a future meeting to be able to understand exactly
what the complexity of this is.
I'd be reluctant to automatically assume that where the light's
going to be placed by the Florida Department of Transportation is the
wrong location, and I don't want to imply that in any statement that
I'm going to sign on to.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then in that case, are there -- is
there a motion to bring this back for consideration on the next agenda?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll make --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I motion to bring it back to the
next agenda.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Fiala, second
Page 36
--.-------
May 10, 2005
by Commissioner Halas to bring this item back to the next agenda.
Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think we ought to find out
from County Manager where our -- what the schedule is, if we're
going to have room on the next agenda.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, they're all busy from now till the
end. You only have three more basic meetings, so there's -- the first
meeting in June is better than the last meeting in May and the last
meeting in June. I can tell you that much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You want to try the first meeting
in June?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We'll do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What is that schedule going to do with
respect to the FDOT decision? Is this time critical? Do we delay too
long on this issue if we do this?
MR. TOMPKINS: Can I address that?
MR. MUDD: Sure.
MR. TOMPKINS: Timing is -- you know, the amount of time
here is critical, I believe. The longer the decision stands as it is today,
the more difficult it's going to be to make the change without question.
If you simply were to send the letter to get on record, it's going to take
them time to make the decision.
I would much appreciate the board at least considering writing a
letter on behalf of residents of Collier County first, then we can settle
that other.
Commissioner Henning brings a great -- brings up a great point.
I was just specifically told they were looking to -- they were looking
for comment and input from the county staff that would have
suggested the light be located at Eagle Creek Drive, and they just
didn't really get that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we can ask them to not
Page 37
May 10, 2005
approve the design of the improvements on there until we resolve it. I
think it's more an important issue, because we have a holistic issue
about traffic movements and the coordination of -- on state roads.
Much rather send a letter asking them to delay than --
J\fR. TOMPKINS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- post a letter to give certain
direction.
MR. TOMPKINS: I think that would be better than nothing for
the next four weeks.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'd like to hear from Mr.
Feder. I got a little bit of concern the way we may be going with this.
I have no problem bringing it back, and I'd like to see Florida
Department of Transportation here to explain the logic behind
everything, lay it out so that we can understand it.
I think Mr. Feder might be able to shed some light on this.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, based on the discussion that you're
having, I think bringing it back in two weeks, getting a full discussion
of some of the issues appropriate, and what I would do is say that, in
response to the petitioner, is you might want to send a letter by the
chairman to Florida DOT asking that they come to that board meeting
and be here to respond to any questions you have. It is a state route.
They're the ones that permit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You've already answered my
question. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. We have a motion by
Commissioner Fiala to bring it back.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll give it -- I think you did get
a second.
Page 38
May 10, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did we have a second?
MS. FILSON: Yeah, we have a second, but does that include the
letter?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, that just includes bring it back.
MS. FILSON: Oh, okay. I'll amend my motion to also write a
letter on -- the chairman write a letter to FDOT inviting them to that
meeting to comment on this as well.
MS. FILSON: And I have a second from Commissioner Halas.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And second by Commission
Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And my second --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Any further 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: Any opposed, by like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It carries unanimously. If you'd --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe a more appropriate thing
to do is have a discussion item on the MPO, which will be February
13th.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This Friday.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This Friday.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There you go.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't we bring that up during that
Page 39
May 10. 2005
meeting, because we can't make that decision here. But I think both
things would be appropriate, if the MPO can solve that problem in the
interim, then we won't need on the first meeting in June, but at least
we have just passed a motion that will schedule this for the first
meeting in June. If it is resolved before then, then we can drop that
meeting in June.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And Mr. Feder will give the state reps
that are going to come to your MPO meeting a heads up that this will
be an item of discussion so that they'll be -- have the information they
need.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That will be good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Keith, you can always bring
people from Eagle Creek on Friday. It starts at 10 o'clock.
MR. TOMPKINS: I'll be there. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Good. Thank you very l11uch.
Okay. We have a time certain for 10 o'clock.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to get started on that. We
probably will break at 10:30. If I don't break at 10:30, please throw
something at me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll be happy to.
Item #8B
PUDA-2004-AR-6786, VANDERBILT PARTNERS II, LLC,
REPRESENTED BY RICHARD YOV ANOVICH, OF
GOODLETTE, COLEMAN & JOHNSON, P.A., REQUESTING TO
AMEND THE COCOHATCHEE BAY PUD DOCUMENT FOR
THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE BALD EAGLE
MANAGEMENT PLAN AND RELATED REFERENCES IN THE
PLi\NNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) DOCUMENT. THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 532 ACRES, IS
Page 40
May 10, 2005
LOCATED IN SECTIONS 8, 16, 17 & 20, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - MOTION TO
DISAPPROVE PETITION - APPROVED;
RESOLUTION 2005-181A (RESOLUTION OF DENIAL)
MR. MUDD: Okay. Commissioner, this is item 8B. Again, it's
a time certain 10 a.m. The petition was continued from the April 26th,
2005, BCC hearing at the applicant's request.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's petition PUDA-2004-AR-6786, Vanderbilt Partners II, LLC,
represented by Richard Y ovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman, and
Johnson P.A. requesting to amend the Cocohatchee Bay PUD
document for the limited purpose of amending the Bald Eagle
Management Plan and related references in the planned unit
development document.
The subject property consists of 532 acres. It's located in Sections
8, 16, 17, and 20, Township 48 south, Range 25 east, Collier County,
Florida.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Will everyone who is going to
provide testimony in this hearing please stand and be sworn.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Mr. -- I'm sorry?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You have to do your disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
Commissioner Halas, ex parte disclosures, please.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I have a large packet of
information here. I've had meetings, correspondence, e-mails, and
phone calls over the course of this whole project.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I have had numerous
meetings, phone calls, correspondence, phone calls on this project.
Page 41
_~_.~__".,~_._'."_ ·_""O~_~ ' -
May 10. 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have had many phone calls,
correspondence, e-mails, meetings, with people on both sides of this
issue over the past several months.
Commissioner Fiala?
COll\fMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I, too, have had meetings,
correspondence, e-mails, phone calls, I've sought out information as
well and gone to see the site, and I have a bit of stuff here that will be
on file for anybody who would like to see it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've had several e-mails and
written correspondence on this issue, and it was a while ago that I
talked to the owner on this property, and I talked to, recently, Floyd
Chapin from Sapphire Lakes on this issue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you. Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You ready?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. Mr. Y ovanovich, yes, go ahead.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner.
I have with me today, and they will be speaking, Don Corace, a
representative of the owner; Steve Godley, one of our eagle
consultants. Tom Logan, who was with the state at the time that we
initiated the permitting process, will also be speaking.
While Jay's setting up the Power Point, I just want to, for the
public's benefit, talk about -- I'm not going to talk about each
document, but I'm just going to state for the record what was in the
binders that was delivered to everybody, so -- and I'll leave my copy
for the court reporter.
We want to enter into a record the original ordinance, number
2000-88, aerial photographs and site plans for the site, which we'll be
going through on the visualizer, a list of expenses incurred, a copy of
LDC section 3.11.3, LDC section 3.04 -- these both deal with
protected endangered species -- a copy of the applicable growth
Page 42
May 10,2005
management plan provisions, Mr. Corace's statements, a copy of the
Army Corps of Engineers' permit, and we will-- in making the copy,
we omitted to provide copies of the actual terms and conditions of the
Corps' permit which we'll be supplementing neglect record, staff
comment letter regarding two SDP applications, the original petition
for the PUD amendment, your staff report as part of the record, the
staff report to the planning commission, the transcript of the original
hearing before the board on December 16,2000, and the minutes from
the BCC's meeting discussing the process we're going to follow today.
And all of that, you've been provided copies. The county manager
and county attorney have been provided copies.
We don't need to go into great detail. Many of those are attached
to the executive summary. And with that, we'll go ahead and get
started.
Before you today is a petition to amend the Bald Eagle
Management Plan attached to the Cocohatchee Bay PUD. That's the
sole purpose of today's hearing.
Several months ago we came to you all to determine what the
process was going to be to amend the Bald Eagle Management Plan,
and the Board of County Commissioners agreed that we would be
amending the Bald Eagle Management Plan and not be addressing
other revisions to the PUD.
Today's hearing is limited to the purpose of determining whether
or not the Bald Eagle Management Plan that we are proposing is
consistent with the county's comprehensive plan. As we've discussed
on many, many occasions over the past couple of years, policy
7.1.2(3) in the conservation element is the operative policy, and this
policy states that the county shall consider and utilize
recommendations and letters of technical assistance from the Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Committee -- Co~ission, sorry, and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Where we are today is we have obtained our Army Corps of
Page 43
-~-"-'"-
May 10.2005
Engineer's peffi1it for the project. And in that it adopts a Bald Eagle
Management Plan that addresses how we will go forward with the
project.
As just a general overview of where we were before the adoption
of the P1JD and where we are based on the adoption of the PUD, the
original zoning on the property prior to the adoption of the PUD
would have allowed 1,758 units upon 532 acres.
The PUD downzoned the property from that number to 590 units,
which was a reduction of 1,168 units. That equates to a density of 1.1
units per acre.
And if the commission will remember, there was a big push in
those days to reduce density and increase open space, and that's what
the PUD did, it reduced density tremendously and increased preserve
areas. It allowed for five high-rise towers, one tower is 15 stories, and
with the other four are 20 stories.
On the visualizer you'll see in yellow the boundaries of the PUD,
and in pink -- at least that's what color I think it is, is pink -- is
approximately 90 acres outside of the PUD boundary that has been
acquired and put in conservation.
What you have in front of you is a site plan that addresses where
the buildings will be located, and you will see that on the east side of
Vanderbilt Drive, you have the golf course and the -- what's known as
the finger, where some residential units will be built, and then on the
\vest side you will see the five towers that I've just described.
The IS-story tower is on the northern portion of the property, and
the four towers south of the northern tower are 20 stories.
This is a little closer -- closer-up view. You will see on this
picture, the smaller circle is the 750- foot primary zone, and the larger
circle is the secondary zone, and that's the overall site plan.
We have gone through, as I said, and obtained a peffi1it frol11 the
Almy Corps of Engineers that allows for us to go forvvard with the
project. There's a lot of confusion as to \vhat exactly \ve got. We did
Paae 44
~
May 10,2005
not get a permit to cut down the eagle tree, we did not get a permit to,
in any way, touch or harm the eagles.
We got a permit that's known as an Incidental Take Permit, and
our consultants will get into much greater detail as to what that permit
allows, but it allows us to go forward with the construction of our
proj ect in a certain sequence, and I'll get into that in a little bit greater
detail in just a moment.
There's been some discussion about, you know, whether or not
we're even allowed to come forward with an amendment to the Bald
Eagle Management Plan, and Mr. Corace will get into that a little bit
great detail about statements that were made at the original PUD
hearing and where we are now.
I want to point out what the documentation actually says. And
the adopted PUD allows for an amendment to the Bald Eagle
Management Plan. It's addressed in two different sections. The PUD
document itself in section 6.9 addresses amending the Bald Eagle
Management Plan.
Also in section 4.3 of the Bald Eagle Management Plan itself, it
specifically addresses amending the Bald Eagle Management Plan if
site conditions change or management techniques change.
So the documents that were adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners specifically address the potential of an amendment to
the Bald Eagle Management Plan, and that is where we are today. We
are requesting an amendment to the Bald Eagle Management Plan.
I'd also point out, we're no different than any other person who
has a PUD on their property. You always have the right to come and
petition your government and ask for a change to the PUD document.
That's where we are today.
We never gave that right up, and we're here before you to focus
on, is our Bald Eagle Management Plan consistent ~ith your
comprehensive plan, and we submit to you that it is -- it definitely is,
and your staff also agrees that our Bald Eagle Management Plan is
Page 45
-"""'.--. .<".-- _..._,---",,"~<>,
May 10, 2005
consistent with the comprehensive plan.
I want to briefly go through what we -- what we've agreed to do,
what the phasing will be, and what we're offering up in return for an
amendment to the Bald Eagle Management Plan.
"vVe\re offered two forms of mitigation. The first is your
traditional form of mitigation where we would acquire habitat. We
anticipate that we'll be acquiring approximately a hundred acres of
bald eagle habitat hopefully in Collier County, and if not, it will be in
Southwest Florida.
We have also, and Mr. Logan will get into this in great detail
with Mr. Godley, have proposed constructing an artificial tree. The
artificial tree will probably look more real than our real tree looks. It
will cost approximately a quarter of a million dollars to build, and we
believe will provide appropriate habitat for either the pair of eagles
that's already there on the site to relocate there or another pair of
eagles, but we believe that that artificial tree is a scientific concept
that's worth studying and will ultimately benefit eagles in Collier
County on -- and the eagle population, you know, I guess, nationwide.
We've also agreed to a phasing schedule, and I want to take you
through the phasing schedule quickly. If we can all remember the
nun1bering of the buildings it goes from, it's -- five is the most north
and one is the most south, because I'm going to be flipping through
and you won't be able to flip back.
But the building that's most north, we would anticipate
constnlction commencing approximately September of '05. That
would be the first non-nesting season since the adoption of the Bald
Eagle Management Plan, if it's adopted.
We would build the amenities for the proj ect the following
non-nesting season, in '06, which \vould basically coincide with
con1pletion of the first building. It takes approximately 18 months to
t\VO years to build the buildings.
We would then build the building next to building five, the
Page 46
May 10,2005
northern building. We could start that in the non-nesting season of
'07. We would then move t~ the southern building, which is building
one, and construct that in the non-nesting season of '08, and then it's
our option to build either two or three in non-nesting seasons '09 or
2010.
Now these are -- this is the quickest it could occur, okay? I
mean, market conditions are going to determine whether or not we
actually build a building every year. But that's the quickest it could
occur under the Bald Eagle Management Plan that was approved by
the -- ultimately the Army Corps of Engineers.
What the county gets under the new Bald Eagle Management
Plan that it doesn't have under the existing Bald Eagle Management
Plan is the mitigation and the construction schedule. If the tree were
to fall down tomorrow, there would be no acquisition of mitigation
lands or the construction of the artificial tree. The tree is a dead tree.
It's going to fall down. It's lasted longer than anybody originally
anticipated, but it's going to fall down.
The eagle experts say it's going to fall down, and both the state
and federal government believe that the Bald Eagle Management Plan
we're proposing based upon the mitigation of the acquisition of land of
purchase -- and the construction of this tree is for the betterment of
eagles, and not only eagles in general, but also eagles in Collier
County.
In conclusion, before we get into Mr. Corace's statements and
others, I want to remind the board that we have received all the
required federal and state permits to go forward with the project.
The county's policy has been consistently to defer to the state and
federal governments and their permits when dealing with listed and
endangered species.
The reason you do that -- and we've been through this on
nun1erous occasions -- is those are the agencies that have the
appropriate scientists and experts to make these decisions.
Page 47
May 10, 2005
Mr. Lorenz has told you on many occasions that he doesn't have
that specific expertise on his staff to get into evaluating the merits of
each individual application. That's been the process we've followed.
It's been followed for many years and is what the -- is what your
cOlnprehensive plan says.
We are requesting that you follow your staffs recommendation
and approve the changes to the Bald Eagle Management Plan as ~we've
requested.
And what I'll do is I'll turn it over to Mr. Corace right now, and
then Mr. Godley will follow Mr. Corace, and then Mr. Logan will
follow Mr. Godley. It may be a little bit more expeditious if you
allow us to complete the presentation and then we'll be happy to
answer any additional questions. And then, of course, we would like
the opportunity to respond to any public comment after public
comment is made.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, I\1r. Y ovanovich.
MR. YO V ANOVICH: Thank you.
MR. CORACE: Good l11orning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
MR. CORACE: Chairman Coyle, members of the Commission,
for the record, my name is Don Corace. I am a principal partner with
Signature Communities. Signature is the developer of record for
Lodge Abbott & Associates, which is now the owner of the subj ect
property.
Signature was also the developer of record for Vanderbilt
Partners II. Vanderbilt had an option contract to purchase the property
in the year 2000 and was the original applicant when the PUD zoning
was passed in 2000. Vanderbilt assigned the contract to Lodge Abbott
in 2001 \vell after the PUD was approved. Lodge Abbott closed on
the property in reliance on development rights specifically outlined in
the PUD.
As you knO\V, our project has been a target of controversy for the
Paue 48
b
May 10,2005
past several months as it relates to the timing of development. So far I
have been silent about what I believe has been a mischaracterization
of the facts. I now, however, feel compelled to set the record straight.
I thought I made it perfectly clear five years ago that it was our
objective to go forward with the development of our high-rises in four
to five years. I stated this during meetings with neighborhood groups,
before the Environmental Advisory Council, the planning
commission, and finally before the Board of County Commissioners.
My statements are transcribed in the exhibit book, which has been
presented to you as part of Exhibit 7.
Our opponents have, instead, chosen to narrowly focus on
statements made by a consultant, Karen Bishop. It is true that Karen
stood before the board on December 16th, 2000, and said that nothing
was going to be done until the eagles left; however, I believe her
statements were -- have been taken out of context.
The record was clear, and it was everyone's understanding, the
staff, the biological experts, and the Board of County Commissioners,
that the nest tree was dead and would likely fall down within a couple
of years or during a storm.
Karen's statement was an offhand remark and one that, I assure
you, she deeply regrets. But her statement was clearly made in the
context that the tree would fall soon, long before our four- or five-year
time frame to construct the high-rises. That is what she meant and that
is what I think we all understood at the time. For any confusion that
statement may have caused, I sincerely apologize.
Development of this project as approved is inevitable. If the tree
falls now, the eagles will likely locate aband -- will likely relocate and
probably abandon the neighborhood, and we'll be able to move
fOf\vard with construction of the high-rises. We believe we are doing
the right things. .
Weare offering quite of bit in exchange for going forward with
our development as planned before the tree falls and the eagles
Page 49
May 10, 2005
relocate. What we are first giving you is the artificial tree to try to
keep the eagles in the neighborhood; something we all want.
But please understand, constructing this tree is not a condition of
our pennits. It is a voluntary measure, which will, as Rich had
menti.oned, cost over $250,000 to construct.
Weare also in the process of securing mitigation land for bald
eagles, preferably in Collier County, to provide habitat for other
eagles at a cost of probably hundreds of thousands of dollars. The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not require us to provide
mitigation. We requested that they make it part of the tenns and
conditions of our Incidental Take Pennit. Why? Because we thought
it was the right thing to do.
Bottom line, the State of Florida and the U.S. government
thought it was a great deal for the eagles. That is why they issued the
pennits. For the same reason, this is a good deal for Collier County.
You will hear from our opponents about the integrity of the
process. Let me talk about the county's representations made to us
during that process.
As you know, Lodge Abbott was a contract purchaser. Lodge
Abbott has spent $45 million in reliance upon the PUD. Exhibit 3 in
your booklet provides details of those expenses.
The written PUD document provides that the Bald Eagle
Management Plan could be amended. Your written land developn1ent
code and growth management plan provide that the county defers to
state and federal agencies. Your staff will tell you that.
Weare also required to dedicate land to the county at no cost as
part of the original PUD. That was the right-of-way acquisition. We
have done so.
Lodge Abbott relied on all of this and asked that the county live
up to its written representations, not an offhand ren1ark by a consultant
being taken out of context. Again, if there was some
lnisunderstanding as to what I said during the time timing for the
Page 50
May 10, 2005
construction to take place within four to five years, I apologize. I
thought I was clear. .
In fact, I thought the testimony given by former County Manager
Olliff on December 12th, 2000, was also abundantly clear. You have
that transcript in your booklet. On page 169 of the minutes of that
meeting, Mr. Olliff said, I want to make sure that the record's clear
about what it is that we're -- that you're approving, because unless
some of these things are committed to as part of the final language of
the development order, it is not part of the development order, end
quote.
I assure you, if Mr. Olliff had mentioned a condition that we wait
to construct our high-rises until the eagle's relocated, I would have
obviously objected. He did not, so naturally I thought it was clear that
we would proceed with obtaining our permits to construct the
high-rises whether the eagles relocated or not.
In conclusion, we think you are here to represent and protect the
county as a whole and to fairly apply your land development code and
growth management plan. Please, listen to your staff and do what you
think is in the best interest of the county. What we propose is a fair
balance between where the eagles live and our rights to make
reasonable use of our land.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today. I'll be
glad to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think you have one more speaker, don't
you? Two more speakers.
Thank you very much, Mr. Corace.
MR. GODLEY: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Steve
Godley, the president of Biological Research Associates. I have been
a professional environmental consultant specializing in endangered
and threatened species for 30 years, and I've also pu~lished over 20
papers on wildlife ecology in Florida.
I have extensive bald eagle experience. I've written or supervised
Page 51
May 10, 2005
over 40 Bald Eagle Management Plans in this state, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, and elsewhere.
As a result of my experience with dev'elopment bald eagle
conflicts, I was appointed as the only nongovernmental member, a
biologist, to the Bald Eagle Recovery Team in the Southeastern
United States in 1997, and I've served on that Bald Eagle Recovery
Team since then.
I also was the primary author of the bald eagle monitoring
guidelines that's published on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
website. Tom Logan, who's going to speak after me, was the editor
and the compiler of that.
And in the case of the bald eagle monitoring guidelines, what I
did was to summarize all the -- all the scientific literature on
disturbance in eagles and how that would apply to land development
and l11inimize the potential effects or consequences of development on
bald eagles.
I have been working on the Cocohatchee PUD project and the
bald eagles that are there since 2001 in large part to develop an
ecologically appropriate Bald Eagle Management Plan for this
particular pair, taking into account that the particular circumstances
and the changes in bald eagle management techniques that we have
learn learned over the -- excuse me -- over the last couple years.
What I want to do today is to first describe the recovery and the
current status of the bald eagle in the state and also the nation. To
give you some history on the bald eagles at the Cocohatchee project,
it's named CQ-O 19, that's the nest number, and explain how we've
used this information in order to develop that appropriate Bald Eagle
1\IIanagement Plan.
As all of you are a\vare, the bald eagle recovery in the U.S. has
been a remarkable conservation story. In 1963, there were 461 pairs
of bald eagles in the lower 48. By 1998, that had increased to 5,784.
It's now probably in excess of 7,400 pairs in the lower 48 states.
Page 52
May 10,2005
In Florida when I started as an environmental consultant in 1974,
there were between 300 and 325 pairs in the entire state. It's now over
1,200 pairs.
Of course, the reason for the remarkable success of the bald eagle
has been the elimination of DDT and, hence, eggshell thinning is not a
problem anymore, and also the management techniques and the
conservation that we've applied to bald eagles in our state and
elsewhere.
What I want to do here is to show you what has happened to bald
eagles, in particular, in Southwest Florida. I've chosen two dates
where we have information. As you can see, 1972 to '75, and from '99
to 2002, I've listed the counties from north to south, that's the coastal
counties, and also added in Glades and Hendry.
What is remarkable, of course, if you look at the change in the
30-year period, is there have been only a slight increase in bald eagles
in Collier County and in Monroe and Everglades National Park, and
the explanation that's provided in the scientific literature is that the use
of D DT in those counties was the least in the entire state.
Consequently, after the removal ofDDT in 1972, those two
areas, Collier, Monroe, Everglades National Park, provided the
offspring that fueled the remarkable growth of bald eagles in the
southeastern -- southwest coast, excuse me.
The other thing that's remarkable from the chart, if you look at
the changes in the human population over time in the same counties, it
has no relationship at all to the increase in bald eagle populations.
Often our fastest growing counties in human populations are also
the fastest one with bald eagles. The reasons, the biological reasons,
are relatively simple and straightforward. Bald eagles essentially need
two things, one, they have to have an adequate forage base, which is
primarily fish, and they have to have an adequate ne~ting substraits,
which typically is either pine trees or artificial nesting structures.
So if you have those two things and have released, or actually
Page 53
----~._..-.._-
May 10, 2005
eliminated DDT in the environment, what we've seen is the explosion
of populations of eagles.
Bald eagle territory CO-O 19 has been active since 1991, and the
current nest tree is located in a dead slash pine that was killed in a
lightning strike to fire in 1998.
In September of 200 1 -- I'm going to go forward here. In
September of 200 1, Tropical Stonn Gabrielle came through, blew the
nest out of the tree, which was -- look down below, that's nest on the
ground. I examined the tree at that time, and one thing that hit me --
and I don't know that you can see this from the shadows, but you see
that a majority of the bark is gone off the crotch. Do you have a
pointer anybody?
A majority of the bark is off the crotch. And I think if you look
carefully at the bare -- the bare parts of the tree, you can see numerous
holes in the tree itself, and those are beetle borings that have infected
the tree and eventually will cause, of course, it to rot.
Let me just see if I can show you carefully. For example, there's a
hole right there, there's holes here, here, here, et cetera. So there's
numerous -- numerous infestations of beetles, and they're deteriorating
the branches.
In the stonn, in fact, one of the support branches broke off
because of the weight of the nest and all the rain that caused it. And
so the tree is going to fall. It's just a matter of when.
Eagles have a very strong preference for live trees, particularly
live pines. And, in fact, in most cases, if the live tree is struck by
lightning, killed by a fire, something like that, either that season or the
next season, they \vill relocate into a live pine.
In the case of the Cocohatchee pair, I've examined all the pine
trees that are out there. I was not able to find a suitable tree that I
thought that an eagle was likely to build a nest in in the future, and I'll
explain the reasons for that in a minute.
This is probably why the birds haven't attempted to relocate up to
Page 54
"··_·V,"~~··_·_'_"'_·_····_'_··_
May 10, 2005
this date.
The other point about ~agle biology I want to stress is that the
tree itself is a temporary structure subject to lightning strikes,
wildfires, bark beetle infestations, and hurricanes.
As for example, last year when Hurricane Charley came through,
473 nest trees were in the path of that hurricane that had at least 50
mile an hour winds. A lot of those nests were lost.
I talked to John White who flies a majority of those territories for
the commission, and he reported to me this year that approximately 90
percent of the birds have renested either in the tree, if it was intact, or
in an adjacent suitable tree. And so, I just want to emphasize that
about the biology of the bird.
As a conservation biologist, I approached the five condominium
projects on five primary perspectives. One, if we wait until the tree
falls, no mitigation will be necessary or required, and the pair most
likely would be lost from Collier County and the southwest area.
Secondly, the applicant has the right to seek the appropriate
permits to develop the property.
Third, the best option, and in my opinion, in Mr. Logan's opinion
and in the Service's opinion, to maintain this pair in the vicinity of the
proj ect and on the territory, was to construct an artificial tree that was
lightning-proof, hurricane-proof, and also secure and away from any
development.
As additional insurance, fourthly, the applicant has agreed to
purchase an off-site territory.
And then the fifth point is, how do we best minimize the effects
of disturbance in this particular pair by sequencing the project?
The biological opinion Incidental Take Statement issued by the
Service and incorporated into the Corps permit addressed all five of
those issues.
Under the Corps permit and under what's before you today, the
purchase of the territory has to occur before any construction of the
Page 55
May 10. 2005
condominium occurs or any development. The construction of the
tree will also occur prior to development.
I emphasize to you, again, as was stated to you, these were
voluntary measures on the part of Signature Community not required
by the state or federal agencies, but are incorporated into the Bald
Eagle Management Plan and will be required by Collier County.
Tom Logan, myself, and the feds propose constructing the
artificial tree for three reasons. First, as I mentioned, on the property,
based on helicopter surveys and ground surveys, I couldn't find a pine
that had the appropriate configuration.
And if you'll notice, this is what I mean by that. In order to
support a nest, a tree has to have a minimum of three branches and at
the configuration. It has to be like that (indicating). It can't be just a
pair of branches because the nest would fall out on either side. So it
has to have that wine glass shape.
So it's relatively easy to go to every mature pine, look at it and
see if it has any configuration that could support a tree (sic).
Secondly, collapse of the current tree is imminent. It's not a
matter of if; it's a matter of when.
And the third point is that the number of bald eagle pairs that are
in the state in artificial structures, which are either cell towers, osprey
platforms or power pole cross members has been increasing in the
state at a rate of essentially doubling every -- every three to four years.
All of those kind of structures are very stabling construction. In
fact, the oldest one that's been continuously used now is for 24 years,
and that actually matches what's in live trees.
So this new technology provides the best management technique
to maintain and increase the bald eagle populations, particularly along
our coast, that has dense fish populations, limited live pines, and
obviously wonderful fishing resources.
We contacted every company that had anything to do with
aliificial trees over a two-year period, and selected the Larson
Page 56
May 10,2005
company out of Tucson, Arizona. We've been to the site. The
construction drawings are d~ne.
It's going to use a monopole technology for cell towers mostly
because all the engineering is known. It can be put in the ground, it
can be driven, it will be very stable, it will be hurricane-proof, it will
be lightning-proof, and it will have artificial bark, artificial needles,
and obviously will be in the configuration. And it will not have a cell
tower on the top of it. This is an example of what the bark will look
like after construction is complete.
The specific location that we chose is out in the estuarine system
on the 90 acres that was mentioned earlier. It's well away from any
development, any construction, any disturbance. It's actually on a salt
flat. The tree will be barged in. We'll have a crane over the
mangroves, won't have to disturb any mangroves, the area of
disturbance of the base of the tree is a five-by-five area only, five feet
by five feet, so it minimizes human disturbance and impact to the
wetland resources.
South Florida Water Management district will accompany us in
the construction of the tree and the county staff, if they wish, again, to
ensure that it's done properly.
The details of securing the off-site territory were already
discussed. I'm not going to go into any more details of that.
Mr. Y ovanovich has explained the sequencing of construction of
the development, including the land clearing and each of the condos,
its design, specifically to minimize the effects on the birds.
We anticipate that the birds are going to eventually abandon --
either eventually abandon the tree or the tree is going to fall prior to
the construction of the condominiums.
The Service is obligated to prepare and issue a biological
opinion, Incidental Take Statement for two reasons. ,One, it protects
the applicant; secondly, it protects the county against an illegal --
\VThat's called a section nine take under the act.
Page 57
May 10, 2005
In Florida, about 40 similar Incidental Take Statements have
been issued in the last three or four years, and obviously there's not
been a decline in eagles and don't -- don't expect that to occur.
I emphasize again that there won't be any killing of eagles, the
tree 'I-'\lill be left in its place, and the most likely outcome is the birds
will re-nest in the artificial tree. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Mr. Godley.
We're taking a 10-minute break now. Thank you very much.
(A brief recess was taken.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. Has the
petitioner completed their presentation?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have one more --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- coming up right now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
MR. LOGAN: Thank you, Commissioners, ladies and
gentlemen, I'm Tom Logan. I'm vice-president with Breedlove,
Dennis & Associates. I'm out of Tallahassee.
I am a certified wildlife biologist. I've been in the business of
wildlife research and management for almost 40 years now. The past
30 years, for the most part, has been very much involved in the
research and recovery of endangered species. Bald eagles have been
very much a part of that.
I came to Florida in '79 as chief of wildlife research for the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. I moved from
that position in 1996 to the endangered species coordinator position
for the agency, and the last two years, two and a half years, I've been
in the private sector enjoying the opportunities that are there
desperately trying to pretend like I'm new again in a new career
Page 58
May 10, 2005
fighting the aging process, and it's a tough one.
I have my resume. I've submitted it earlier, and I'll submit it
again before I leave.
I hope that it's clear by now that the Bald Eagle Management
Plan for the Cocohatchee project and it's conservation measures for
bald eagle territory 19 has, in fact, been fully endorsed by both the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service as a plan that will provide lasting conservation
benefits for bald eagles in Southwest Florida.
The process by which this endorsement was provided began
during the summer of 2002 through early planning between the
applicant, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,
and the U.s. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Both agencies acknowledged at that time through informal
consultation that nest number 19 was in a dead tree that would be lost
as a nest site in the foreseeable future, and agreed, furthermore, that
the conservation measures proposed by the applicant in this plan that
currently exists would provide conservation benefits for bald eagles
that would not otherwise continue to exist in the absence of that tree.
The Fish and Wildlife Service then used the prior Planning and
consultation with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation as a basis
for preparing a biological opinion and an Incidental Take Statement as
formal section seven consultation with the U.S. Army COtps of
Engineers pursuant to issuance of the Cotps 404 permit to authorize
construction of the Cocohatchee project.
Section seven consultation between the Fish and Wildlife Service
and the Cotps is required, as Steve Godley talked about in more
detailed, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to assure that the
conservation needs of listed species are adequately addressed for
actions such as the Cocohatchee project. .
The conservation measures recommended by both the Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the Service were
Page 59
May 10, 2005
fully incorporated as legally binding conditions of the Corps permit
that was issued for the Cocohatchee proj ect.
These conservation measures generally are the construction of
the artificial nest tree within the vicinity of the proj ect that Steve
described, the long-term preservation of suitable nesting habitat for
bald eagles in the vicinity of the project, and ultimate -- and
additionally, the phasing of construction that would not begin until
these two conservation measures are in place.
I personally know the process and the facts that I've referenced to
you to be true because I served as the endangered species coordinator
for the commission during the early planning of the Cocohatchee
project.
More specifically, I provided technical review and
recommendations on behalf of the commission that were incorporated
in the initial plan, I represented the commission during consultation
with the Fish and Wildlife Service and their preparation of the
biological opinion, and I continue to provide input and technical
counsel to this project as questions and opportunities arise.
I do this for a number of reasons. I initially recognized the
valuable and unusual opportunity through this project to make a
contribution to the future conservation, management, and secured
recovery of bald eagles in Florida.
The applicant demonstrated an imagination and willingness to
incorporate unprecedented conservation measures into their plan,
some of which actually have since lead to their application as standard
measures and a number of other projects that have been permitted,
authorized, and implemented throughout the State of Florida.
It was clear the tree supporting nest 19 would eventually fall, and
there was a likelihood the territory would cease to exist without son1e
fonl1 of management intervention, such as offered by the Cocohatchee
project.
Major conservation measures, for example, construction of the
Page 60
'.~'---
May 10, 2005
artificial nest tree and the preservation in perpetuity of natural area in
the vicinity of the project w~ll be completed and in place prior to the
onset of construction that could cause any possible abandonment of
nest 19 if, in fact, the nest still exists at the time that construction
actually begins.
Bald eagles are demonstrating, as Steve indicated, an increasing
willingness to use artificial nest structures for nesting in Florida as
their numbers increase with their recovery in the state.
The proposed construction of an artificial nest tree within a
secured site from the present territory of nest 19 provides the first
opportunity that we've ever had to evaluate our abilities to
successfully design and install an artificial nest structure specifically
for bald eagles. The outcome of this could have significant
ramifications to other recovery strategies.
Habitats suitable for nesting bald eagles, other wildlife, and
natural values also will be secured in perpetuity as a part of this
project.
The combination of proposed conservation measures may
improve the probability that territory 19 will, in fact, remain active
within the -- when the dead nest tree falls, and it will, and/or that
nesting bald eagles will benefit from these measures in the near
vicinity of the project within Collier County.
The bald eagle is biologically recovered in the United States and
certainly in Florida. Enlightened management of the species through
sound planning and flexible regulation now is a much greater
conservation value to Florida's bald eagles.
The Cocohatchee project, in my opinion, is a perfect example of
such an enlightened approach that will provide lasting benefits to bald
eagles for us.
Thank you very much. I think we'll all entertai:t;l any questions
that you'd like to ask of us.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Mr. Logan, thank you very much.
Page 61
--_.~---~'~
May 10, 2005
Could you provide your resume, a copy for the record, please.
MR. LOGAN: Yes, I will.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Are there any questions?
Commissioner Henning?
C()MMISSIONER HENNING: The previous speaker stated, if
the existing tree, the dead tree falls, most likely the eagle will not
locate in Southwest Florida? Did I get that correct? No?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Would not relocate in the same area
because there are no suitable trees on the property for the eagle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It would leave the general area that
they're in right now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If there wasn't an option--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- for the eagle?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- can you show me on the
site where the existing tree is and where the proposed fake tree --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner, if you -- in the pink is
where we're proposing to build the tree, and green letter points you to
-- lettering points you to where the proposed tree would be.
If you look between building two and three, you'll see a little dot.
That is where the existing tree is.
So we're relocating -- we're building the artificial tree in the pink
area \vithin the general range of the eagle as it exists right now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's on the -- I guess it would
be the west side of the pink; is that one of the bays?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, that's a -- let me see if I've got a
better aerial. There you go. If you see the pink, that is all -- you can't
get to it. It's all marsh, it's wet. I mean, there's going to be no
development around it, so the tree is going to be, you know, on a salt
flat, as Steve had said. So it's protected.
Page 62
May 10, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It can it be accessed by water?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think so. I don't think you can get
there by water. Can you, Steve. You could?
MR. GODLEY: By boat you could, going through the
mangroves, et cetera.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You want to come up, Steve?
MR. GODLEY: Yes, sir. The island that we're going to build
the tree on is surrounded by mangroves, and we're going to barge the
tree to the mangrove edge, and then as I mentioned, to put a crane
over and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The existing tree, how would
somebody observe the activities of the eagle? Could they do it from --
MR. GODLEY: The road or trespass--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Vanderbilt Beach Road?
MR. GODLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I guess further to the west
is Lely Beach -- or I'm sorry -- Barefoot Beach, the west and north?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. GODLEY: One thing I should mention that I didn't mention
in previous testimony, one of the things that we're proposing to do or
have the option to do, because it is an artificial tree and we're going to
be able to build inside the branches, so to speak, is that the intent is to
put a camera, a remote camera that would be fed by solar power such
that any resident in the county practically could go to the site and
watch the behavior of the birds remotely without disturbing them.
This same technology is used by Audubon. At the Maitland
Birds of Prey facility, for example, there's a nest that's about a half
mile away from there, and it's used on Cape Canaveral, et cetera. It's
been successful with no harm to the trees. And so that would be one
benefit, because everybody would get to see the birds and what they're
doing, and, secondly, there wouldn't be any need to come near the tree
Page 63
May 10, 2005
because you could view it up close and intimate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- my final question is,
we've seen the example of the bark on there, and notice that there's
some lathing, metal lathing in there to, I guess, to plaster on the fake
baric }\,Iot knowing much about the construction of it, how would
lightning affect the structure?
MR. GODLEY: Lightning will not affect the structure. We're
going to have a lightning rod attached to the top of the tree that will
relieve all the electrical tension.
I can tell you personally that I've worked on two bald eagle
territories in which lightning hit the tree, killed the female and the
chicks, fried them. So that's not an unusual circumstance, and
obviously, we want to prevent that, and so it will have a lightning rod
in order to do so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's the present condition of the
tree today? You got a picture of that, what it looks like today?
MR. GODLEY: I don't have one today--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. There's one on here. Just
back up. I think we have what the nest looks like today. Keep -- go
back. There you go. Whoops.
There's what the condition of the tree is today; is that correct?
MR. GODLEY: That's actually 2001.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There is a nest there today?
MR. GODLEY: Yes, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And it looks similar to this?
MR. GODLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That's n1Y -- that's all I
wanted to know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. No other questions?
(N 0 response.)
Page 64
"O.__··.."~·-
----.,.-
May 10, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does staff have a presentation?
MR. BOSI: Mike Bos~, zoning and land development review.
Good morning, commission members. I will try to keep it concise. I
know there's probably a lot of public input that wants to get on record.
I will kind of quickly articulate staffs position, which was
expressed within the staff reports that went to the EAC, the planning
commission, and the executive summaries that are contained within
your agenda packet.
This petition was review by staff, and based upon the proposal to
the Bald Eagle Master Plan and the regulations contained within the
master plan, the land development code, and the specific -- and
provision 6.9F of the PUD document, which contemplates changes to
the Bald Eagle Master Plan, staff arrived at the conclusion that the
petition can be found consistent with all three provisions and,
therefore, recommended approval.
We have that recommendation of approval before EAC. The
EAC reviewed this petition, contemplated it, issued a recommendation
to the Board of County Commissioners of denial by a vote of 5-2.
The planning commission on March 17th had a recommendation
of approval from the staff consistent with our original position. They
had recommended denial as well, 7-1 vote on that.
One thing I think we need to clarify -- because a lot of the
presentation has hinged upon this artificial tree. Now, the position of
the artificial tree is outside the PUD boundary. It sits within a zoning
district that is zoned ST for environmental sensitive overlay district.
That tree could not be -- is not permitted by right.
F or them to construct that tree, they will have to go through the
ST permitting process, meaning back before the EAC, the planning
commission, and the Board of County Commissioners.
I just wanted to get that on record, that it is not :IJy right. They
will have to go through the regulatory process, the public hearing
process, and I just wanted to make sure that the commission
Page 65
.---~----"-_.__.-
ÞV ----~".~."_."-'
May 10, 2005
understands that even with approval of this Bald Eagle Master Plan,
there still will be another obstacle to go before that artificial tree could
be constructed if, indeed, the amendment as it's presented today is
approved.
v\rith that -- that was one of the things I wanted to get on record.
We think that staff has articulated our position relatively clearly in the
staff reports and executive summaries and would open ourselves up to
any questions that the board may have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. The statement was made
that if the tree falls -- we didn't agree to do this and if the tree fell or if
the tree fell prior to this meeting, that they wouldn't be obligated to put
up this artificial tree; is that correct?
MR. BOSI: No, they -- this is an additional mitigation proposal
that was initiated solely by the applicant. It's not required from the
u.S. Fish and Wildlife, by the state or by the county regulations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, let's go back to 2001
when we made this original decision. Was that part of the agreement
that the applicant made to build this tree at that time?
MR. BOSI: I do not believe that there was any contemplation
whatsoever of an artificial tree at the origin approval of this PUD
document.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just wanted to clarify
something. In Ms. Burgeson's report back in December of 2000, she
had mentioned here, until such time as the eagle leaves -- well, let me
get the whole sentence so it makes sense.
And they are not consistent and could not be considered
consistent until such time as that eagle leaves. And here's the part I
was curious about. Once they leave, once they do, there's a two- to
five-year, and she said she thinks it's a five-year time frame from
when the eagle leaves the nest to when construction can be
Page 66
....~~_....._~N
May 10,2005
considered, and that tree could be considered completely abandoned.
So the proposal for res~dential units or development within the
primary or secondary zone is contingent upon the eagle relocating.
So I took that to mention (sic) that if today while we're in this
meeting the tree falls down, they're not supposed to build anyway for
two to five years until they know that the bird is relocating someplace
else?
MR. BOSI: And I would defer to Ms. Burgeson if I answer this
question incorrectly, but I believe that if the tree is abandoned,
meaning the eagle leaves, the tree's still standing, but the eagles no
longer come -- no longer occupy that nest, I believe that's when you
have that two- to five-year waiting period to see whether the eagles
would choose to relo -- would come back to their home.
If that tree falls down, I think that opportunity is no longer an
option; therefore, maybe that waiting period would no longer be
applicable. If there's something incorrect, that I'd defer to Barbara.
MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with
environmental services. What Mike said was correct. The -- those are
the guidelines that are put forth and those are the guidelines as
identified and referenced in our growth management plan; however,
there is that other portion of our growth management plan that can
deem -- that can determine that technical assistance from the agencies
would be found in compliance with our GMPs.
So we have -- if we didn't have technical assistance that
contradicted those guidelines, and those guidelines state that if the nest
falls out of the tree, then there's a five-year time frame where that's --
that is considered, I think it's inactive, I'm not sure, or abandoned, but
for five years they'd have to -- if you went by the guidelines.
But what you've got here is a situation where the applicant has
pursued the Incidental Take Permit and the GMPs h~ve additional
language to be able to find that consistent.
So if we went by the guidelines that would be correct, but going
Page 67
------
May 10, 2005
by the permit and that other portion of the GMPs, you could find
differently. ,
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, it doesn't apply at
all?
lVlR... BOSI: And I could -- Commissioner Fiala, I'll answer that,
with Incidental Take Permit that they've obtained, I'm not sure --
believe those conditions would issue applicable today based upon the
statement of incidental take.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any other presentations by staff?
MR. BOSI: No, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any other questions by commissioners?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then let's go to public comment.
How many registered speakers do we have right now?
MS. FILSON: We have 19, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Three minutes each, please.
MS. FILSON: First one is Eileen --
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, if I could -- if I could interrupt for
just a second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Normally -- normally if you're looking at our
agenda item -- and I want to make sure, because this could go past
noontin1e, okay, and our ordinance says that -- notice all persons
wishing to speak on any agenda item must register prior to speaking --
speakers must register with the manager prior to the presentation of
the agenda item to be addressed.
There have been numerous people during this presentation that
have put slips in. I would suggest at this particular juncture that you
hold it at 19 speakers, because you could break at lunch, and
everybody's friend could come out of the woodwork, and this thing
will go till whenever this afternoon depending on the conversation and
Page 68
--"--~"'_._----
._-_._~---,..._"~.,-,..-
May 10, 2005
the dialogue. And the reason that's in there is to make sure the people
are here to hear the entire p~esentation and their speaker slips in that
process.
MS. FILSON: I now have 20 speakers.
MR. MUDD: See what I'm saying, Commissioner -- you need to
lock it, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I thought it was locked already.
MR. MUDD: Sir, there's been --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But our procedures are very clear on that
respect. If you haven't submitted it by the time we start the discussion
on the item, it's not accepted. So we'll go with the 20, and that's it.
And we'll have three minutes per person.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. Okay. The first speaker is Eileen
Rogers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just a moment, just a moment.
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I observed the persons that were
sworn in, and I don't think there were 19 total that got up and swore to
oath.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are any of the registered speakers here
not sworn in? How many of you have not been sworn in yet? Please
stand up and be sworn in.
(The remaining public speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Okay, we'll proceed.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Eileen Rogers. She'll be
followed by Ronald Jaynes.
And if I could have the second speaker come up and stand
onboard, please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you can alternate -- alternate
podiums, if you wish, so that we can move along as rapidly as
possible. As it is, this is going to take at least an hour.
MS. ROGERS: Good morning. For the record, I'm Eileen
Page 69
May 10, 2005
Rogers. I live at 395 Seagrove Lane, number 101, Naples. I'm
originally from St. Louis, ~issouri. I'm a former lobbyist on child
abuse issues, and currently I volunteer at the local elementary school
to help children with reading that English is their second language.
Lviv husband and I have been full-time residents of the Dunes for
..
approximately two years now, and we're well aware of Signature's
commitment not just to quality, but aesthetics, taking in the
community that they're building, but also taking into consideration the
outlying area and their attention to environmental issues and
conservation.
The differences that are discussed this morning, I believe, are
really quite distinguishable. Signature's presentation was based on the
science of the eagle. And typical of Signature, they have gone the
extra mile and offered to do one of their most generous gestures and
put in an eagle reserve and an artificial tree.
I ask you to view this eagle project this morning from the basic
fundamental premise that the science presented this morning was not
only factual, but substantial and impressive.
I'd also like to mention that being a resident of the Dunes for two
years, we have never once heard a complaint that the developer has
not fulfilled an obligation to the community. Far to the contrary.
They usually go above and beyond what you ask them to do, what
their commitment is. They always add something extra, something
nIcer.
And on any given week you can find the developers on property
having lunch or dinner, and I find that hard to believe that this would
be the case if they, themselves, didn't believe they -- they construct --
conducted their business with the utmost integrity.
I have 323 petitions here today signed in favor of the Bald Eagle
Management Plan. There are 30 of us here in support of Signature's
community.
I ask you to take into consideration my personal experience with
Page 70
._.~h"~'·__
^V_~"__'''_"'''''~__''''__''_<'~'_'_
May 10, 2005
Signature, the science that was presented today, and the rest of the
folks that are going to spea~. There wiil probably be about five us
because we didn't want to drag on the hearing too long.
I thank you for your time and I ask you to vote in favor of the
Bald Eagle Management Plan.
What do I do with these?
MR. MUDD: Give them to the court reporter right over there.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Ronald Jaynes. He'll be
followed by Kirk Bliss.
MR. JAYNES: Good morning. My name's Ron Jaynes, and I'm
a full-time resident of Collier County. My address is 285 Grande Way
in Naples.
Before I retired, I actually vacationed in Naples, and I knew that
Naples was the place that I wanted to spend my retirement.
I purchased a residence at the Signature Communities, and at that
time I was very impressed with the professionalism that Signature --
and the honesty that they had all the way through, from the signing of
the sales contract through closing.
Construction had begun on the first building but was not
completed, so all I had to go on was a floor plan and Signature's word.
By the time that the CO was issued, I got to see my condo for the first
time the amenities that the Dunes had built, and I was really
impressed. They had gone overboard on everything that they said. It
was much, much more than what they had originally promised me.
And due to my experience with Signature Communities, I really
believe that if Signature had really meant that they wouldn't build until
the eagle was gone, that they would have honored that. But what they
really meant was that, you know, the tree isn't going to be there. I
mean, it's a miracle that it's still there after all the hurricanes and stuff
that we've had.
And they built a high quality complex and they're very honest
and sincere people. And I believe in Signature Communities so much
Page 71
May 10, 2005
I've actually purchased three units within the Dunes there. And
obviously I wouldn't have ~Öne that if they weren't the kind of
organization that they are.
I've really enjoyed Naples, and the reason why I want to come
here is because of the beauty. I enjoy driving and walking through
Naples. And I believe it's a -- I believe in its landscaping and its
architecture, and so on and so forth, and I really believe that the Dunes
and Signature Communities has helped beautify Naples.
I drive north on Vanderbilt Road on many occasions, and I want
Signature to be the one to help beautify the Vanderbilt Road. I know
firsthand how they can beautify community, and I'd love to see
another Signature Community on Vanderbilt Road.
Signature has proposed to build five condo towers consisting of
529 units on 629 acres of land. That's only one residence for 1.1
acres. So if you really get to the facts, I'm not sure that any other
builder would build a quality community like Signature has planned.
By Signature's plan to build high-rise condos, it would obviously
leave a lot of acreage for green space and landscaping. I don't believe
that any other builder would use so little of the land for building and
so much for green space.
And, again, to prove the quality of Signature, I've seen many of
the officers at the Dunes community enjoying the amenities there at
the Dunes, and all you can say is that if they are not fair and honest
people, why would they subject themselves to see their own
customers?
So please let a developer like Signature build on Vanderbilt Road
and continue the beautification of North Naples.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker Kirk Bliss. He'll be followed by
Mimi W olok.
MR. BLISS: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Kirk
Bliss. I'm president of the Kramer Triad Management Naples Group
Page 72
'-
May 10,2005
in Naples, Florida. I've been in Florida for three and a half year. I've
been in the management bu~iness for 30 years.
As a management company, we'd like to -- I'm here this morning
basically -- I'm here to believe (sic) that the knowledge to speak to
you but Signature Communities. In my business, I've managed
communities across Michigan mostly, and then I transferred down to
Florida.
Down here in Florida I manage a significant number of high-rises
throughout Florida, from Fort Myers all the way down to Marco
Island. Right now I have communities in Madero. We have
developments in Fort Myers, and I deal with a lot of developers.
Signature Communities is not just an every-day builder who buys
some land, throws up building and moves on. They are a company
dedicated to people, who don't just build homes, they build
communities. They focus on details from structure to landscaping. To
the sale of each home, it's very important till when they deliver to that
owner -- when they deliver to that owner.
They specifically pay close attention to the surroundings in the
community, whether it's the roads, the buildings, the wetlands and the
preserves. As part of their focus to the communities, they bring
management onboard early in the construction process to provide
another view and opinion understanding we would be managing that
community down the road.
In closing, their professionalism and dedication to their work has
provided to Southwest Florida prestigious communities such as the
Dunes of Naples, the Regattas at Vanderbilt Beach, L'Ambiance in
Pelican Bay, Gravena (phonetic) in Pelican Marsh, the Vanderbilt in
Naples, and recently -- and in a distinction, all their communities are
quality, and that is providing prestigious impact to all.
And in my experience in management, I have yet to find, with
the number of developers that I have in my portfolio, that have put
forth the energy, the desire, and the money and the dedication to make
Page 73
May 10, 2005
their communities the best communities in Southwest Florida.
And I thank you for your time.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mimi Wolok. She'll be
followed by Nicole Ryan.
~\(1S. WOLOK: Good morning, Commissioners. Mimi Wolok. I
am representing the North Bay Civic Association and its 400
members.
The petitioner is correct in one aspect. The PUD that it -- was
originally approved does allow amendment to the Bald Eagle Habitat
Management Plan attached to the PUD, but only for changed site
conditions or changed management techniques.
No one here today is arguing that the site conditions have
changed because the nest is still there and still producing fledglings of
bald eagles.
The petitioner, instead, is saying the changed management
technique is that -- this proposal for an artificial nest true off-site, and
somehow the petitioner is confident that they will entice these bald
eagles to this particular nest.
The petitioner is relying on this technique, but it has not been
approved by the scientific community. There are one or two anecdotal
pieces of evidence that a couple of bald eagles have nested in artificial
nest trees, but it's completely untested. There's no peer review data,
there are no viable studies about the viability of artificial nest trees.
The only changed condition is that the real estate market makes it
more lucrative for the developer to build now rather than later.
Policy 7.1.2 section 2A of the GMP requires the petitioner to use
the habitat management guidelines for the bald eagle in the southeast
region, which is a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service publication. The
guidelines state that there should be no construction within 750 feet of
a nest, and no construction activities should occur within is 1,500 feet
of a nest during nesting season or higher than the elevation of the nest
tree.
Page 74
May 10,2005
The petitioner today is attempting to get approval for the
opposite, the very exact opposite of what these guidelines say. The
guidelines say there should be no development within -- of high-rises
within 750 feet of the nest, which is precisely what the petitioner is
asking for approval today, and that would be inconsistent with the
growth management plan.
Mr. Yovanovich mentioned section 7.1.2, section 3, and he says
that that is the operative provision of the growth management plan.
Well, he is wrong. His interpretation would render 7.1.2, section 2A,
completely meaningless. But let's look at section 3. Mr. Y ovanovich
failed to mention the beginning part.
May I conclude?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you'll rap it up.
MS. WOLOK: I'll wrap it up.
I'd like to point out LDC section 10.03.05, which states
unequivocally that all representations of the owner or his agents at
public hearings shall be deemed contractual.
Blindly following the petitioner's proposed management plan
would be inconsistent with growth management policy 7.1.2, section
2A. There are no new circumstances here, no new management
techniques, just a developer that promised it would not build until the
bald eagles left, and then changed its mind.
You have discretion to say no. Please do so today.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Nicole Ryan. She'll be
followed by Jim Carter.
MS. RYAN: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Nicole Ryan, here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
The Conservancy is asking that you deny this PUD amendment.
We believe denial should be based on commitments made on the
record, the connection between these commitments to the land
development code, commitments within the PUD itself, and even
more importantly, the public's trust in the integrity of the planning
Page 75
May 10, 2005
process.
First of all, statements were made on record, not offhanded, but
clearly and concisely and over and over again by the developer's
representative that, without a doubt, indicated no high-rises until the
eagles left of their own accord. With such statements on the record, it
should mean that everyone can confident that what is being said is the
truth.
Beyond that you have the connection between what is stated on
the record and agreements referenced in the PUD itself creating that
rational nexus between the eagle promises and the PUD of which the
eagle management plan is part, in section 2.2 and section 6.2.
Section 2.2 states, all conditions imposed and all graphic
materials presented depicting restrictions for the development of the
Cocohatchee PUD shall become part of the regulations which govern
the manner in which the PUD site may be developed. The conditions
that were imposed include the eagle commitments made.
There is also a connection to the LDC, section 10.03.05.J, which
states, in cases where stipulations, restrictions, and safeguards are
attached, all representations of the owner or his agent at public
hearings shall be deemed contractual and may be enforced by suit for
injunction or other appropriate relief. We believe this says that if you
make a promise on record, you need to keep it.
I notice the LDC states, all representations of the owner or his
agent. Again, referencing back to commitments made on the record
by the developer's agent.
In addition, in the BCC transcript, the motion to approve
included all staff recommendations. Well, in the staff EAC report, one
of the recommendations was to remove residential high-rise towers
from the eagle zones and to place protective ad restrictive covenants
on these zones. The Conservancy believes this was part of the motion
and the approval.
Also very important is the issue of public trust. The proposed
Page 76
May 10,2005
amendment before you reverses an explicit agreement made by the
applicant. If the developer ~s allowed to modify the Eagle
Management Plan, a precedent will be set that will impair public trust
in county government.
In addition, the developer is currently allowed use of their
property. It's simply the timing of some of the uses that is temporarily
-- not permanently, but temporarily restricted. This property owner
has a right to build. They can put in the golf course, which they're
doing, and some of the housing, including the affordable housing
component. And once the eagle leaves, then they'll be able to
continue with high-rises.
Also, the prohibitions placed on the eagle zones were not simply
government-imposed restrictions. It was the developer's agent who
proposed these restrictions, so it needs to be seen for what it is, a
developer's self-imposed commitments. Certainly not a taking.
So to conclude, the Conservancy believes denial of this
amendment can be clearly based on commitments made on the record
by the applicant's representative, the connection between these
promises in LDC section 10.03.05.1, the commitments made within
the Cocohatchee PUD itself, and the public's trust in the integrity of
the planning process.
And I would like to place into the record the transcripts from the
November 16th CCPC meeting from 2000, the December 12th, 2000,
BCC meeting, portions of the EAC staff report from their 2000
meeting, LDC section 10.03.05.J, and the Conservancy's letter to the
commissioners from April 6th and May 9th, 2005.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Jim Carter. He'll be followed
by Chris Straton.
MR. CARTER: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Jim
Carter. I am here on my own behalf. I do not repre~ent the petition or
any of its consultants. I was chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners at the time the Cocohatchee Bay PUD was approved.
Page 77
.---_.-.------
May 10,2005
Current commissioners seated, Fiala, Coletta, and Henning,
served with me, along with ,Commissioner Mac'Kie. This was my
district, and I had great concerns about protecting what was left of the
prime coastal areas.
SorTIe of the things historically in terms of the negotiations that
went on prior to this ever coming in front of the commission is that I
was an advocate of public/private partnership for quality land
management.
Signature worked with me in the presentation of wetlands,
submerged lands, and open space encompassing both the Dunes and
the Cocohatchee PUD from 111 th Street on the north on Vanderbilt
Drive to the east/west Livingston Road.
The Cocohatchee Bay PUD dedicates 91 percent of the project to
recreation golf courses, landscape, open space, lakes, and preserves.
That's a huge amount of land. Reduction of living units. We reduced
available living units from 1,758 units to 590. This represented a
reduction of 1,168 units.
The best part is that all these units are not spread all over the
ground. The majority is in five high-rise towers, needles in the sky,
that are not blocking others' view. This preserves the land mass and
preserves more green space.
Signature was the first to voluntarily hold neighborhood public
information meetings to explain the Cocohatchee Bay PUD. This
procedure later became part of our LDC procedure for development.
Signature was the first to give road -- give road right-of-way to
be used for widening Wiggins Pass Road. Now, that was a request of
Commissioner Coletta, along with the affordable housing section that
is -- that is a part of this PUD.
The PUD was under environ -- under environment requires a
Bald Eagle Management Plan. Now, this plan is to be based on
science, which is before you today, versus an emotional focus on a
dead tree and a nest of questionable durability.
Page 78
~._----_..- -..-
May 10, 2005
As has been said many times, this tree will fall. It's a matter of
time. The mitigation area aþd artificial tree provides a great
opportunity to try and keep the pair of eagles or others for our viewing
pleasure while scientific data is gathered for further knowledge of this
speCIes.
You know -- and I would like to add that I -- I made this vote
based on -- was not conditional upon construction waiting until Mr.
Eagle left. I had the -- if I had intended that to be a part of the
requirement, I would have negotiated that requirement.
I was an experienced commissioner and knew that that nothing I
wanted -- anything that I wanted had to be a part of the requirement to
be in the PUD document itself.
Again, prior to our motion approving this PUD, County Manager
Tom Olliff queried the Board of County Commissioners. His
statement was, I want to make sure the record is clear about what is --
what you're approving, because unless some of these things are
committed as a part to the final language of development, it is not part
of the development order.
I'll finish quickly. There was nothing in this eagle -- in there
about the eagle vacating his nest prior to future development of this
site.
Commissioners, I think you have a great opportunity to be
visionaries this morning. The eagle management plan has great merit.
Its objective is to keep eagles on the coastal area. Rational leadership
today will be applauded in the future by those who may not know
your names but will respect your deeds.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Mr. Carter.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Chris Straton. She'll be
followed by Dwight Richardson. ,
MS. STRATON: Good morning. My name is Chris Straton. I'm
with the League of Women Voters of Collier County, which is a
Page 79
May 10, 2005
nonpartisan organization working to promote political responsibility
through informed and activt? participation of all citizens and local
government.
I would like to read for the record a copy of a letter from our
president, Sheilah Crowley. The League of Women Voters of Collier
County request that the Board of County Commissioners deny the
request to amend Cocohatchee Bay PUD for the purpose of amending
the Bald Eagle Management Plan and related references in the PUD
document.
There are numerous issues surrounding this request. In addition
to the impact upon the eagles, the League is concerned about the
integrity of the planning process in Collier County. Specifically the
role of public testimony and promises made by the applicant and staff.
We are also concerned that the applicant included a specific
number of marina boat slips in the Bald Eagles Management Plan,
despite the fact that BCC has not determined what number of boat
slips will be allowed.
When the PUD was first approved in 2000, the applicant's
representative and county staff made statements which became part of
the public record. We ask that the applicant be held to fulfilling those
earlier promises.
The League is also concerned by remarks by the applicant's
attorney that despite what is stated during a public hearing and any
perceived promises on the part of the applicant, the written PUD
documentation is what really matters. This, too, casts a chill on the
public's faith in our planning process.
From the standpoint off the eagles, the integrity of the planning
process, and the elimination of any future controversy on the number
of boat slips, the League of Women Voters asks the BCC to deny the
amendment.
And I have copies of the letter for all of you and the League of
Women Voters Voter Guide for the years 2005/2006.
Page 80
May 10, 2005
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Dwight Richardson. He'll be
followed by Nancy Payton.,'
MR. RICHARDSON: Good morning, Commissioners. Dwight
Richardson, Naples Park.
I certainly want to complement the Signature Team, its very
potential presentation, and brought a lot of good information to the
public, and I think will help in the decision process.
I'd like to remind the commission though why we're really here,
and that is to represent not only Signature's interest, but also the wider
public interest. And I go back to the time when we had the original
information sessions that then Chairman Carter conducted at the St.
John's Church.
I was there personally and heard the representations of the
Signature team at that time as to what they were going to do with this
property, and they clearly left the impression, which I understand they
didn't want to, but they clearly left the impression that they weren't
going to build these needles in the sky until after -- particularly the
ones in the affected area, until after the eagle left. They volunteered
that information, and -- I told you I'm at the office.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll take that for you.
MR. RICHARDSON: So they volunteered that. And we--
there's no doubt that the community understood that that's what they
were going to do.
Let's talk about the PUD process. We're only looking at a thin
slice of a decision matrix here, that is this Eagle Management Plan.
But you know as you deal with it and as a planning commission deals
with it, any of us deal with it, when you're looking at a PUD, it's a
complex of a lot of things that interact with each other.
I don't think we should be taking -- even though that's what's
been ruled here. I don't think we should be taking this out of context
with the rest of the PUD. And if we think about the 'PUD and the
other conditions that are there, what we have typically done when a
Page 81
-~----_..--_....__.__..,.------,._..
May 10,2005
change comes along, an amendment, we take a look at the whole PUD
and see what's changed. .
We know, for instance, that the ordinances have changed since
this was passed. We know have control over submerged lands, which
we didn't have then. We certainly have a wider community
understanding about building heights, and we've certainly have had a
lot of discussion about that.
If this -- I would argue that if this petition came forward today in
its entirety, you wouldn't have the same project, but yet we're being
asked to pull out this eagle management piece and say that somehow
what I -- what they represented in the past should not be upheld.
I tell you what I'm really concerned about, is I'm really offended,
and I hope you are too, by the tactic of coercion of coming up at the
last minute and telling the commissioners and telling the public that if
you don't give me exactly what I want, I'm going to bring Bert Harris
dovvn here and smash you. I hope you're just as concerned about that
as I am. And I say, for shame on you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Nancy Payton. She'll be
followed by John Leonard.
MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, representing the Florida Wildlife
Federation. And the issue today is very narrow. It is about the Bald
Eagle Management Plan.
Not amending this Bald Eagle Management Plan is akin to
cutting off one's nose to spite your face. We all admit that the
Wiggins Pass eagles will leave sooner or later, when either the tree
falls or the human activities in the vicinity drive them away.
Here is what happens by holding on to the current plan. When
the eagles leave, they are on their own. To go where? No suitable
nesting trees are in their current territory, and the developer is required
to do nothing, that's right, nothing, under the federal permit.
No habitat will be purchased as mitigation and the fake tree or
artificial tree, which provides some hope that this pair or another pair
Page 82
Mav 10. 2005
,; ,
will stay at Wiggins Pass, will not be built.
Here are the benefits to the eagles by accepting the revised plan.
When the eagle leaves, there will be supporting actions in place. The
developer is obligated to purchase mitigation lands, setting a very
Ünpcrrtant precedent for future developments that impact eagle
habitats, and we're going to work with the developer to find those
acres in Collier County.
The fake tree, artificial free, with its educating camera, is built in
their current territory where no other potential trees exist. The fake
nesting tree mayor may not be used by this pair, but it is built and
installed at the developer's expense.
If the tree works, it helps this pair, other eagles, and potentially
other listed species. If it doesn't work, the public loses no money, but
we've learned something scientifically.
An important, and very important distinction under the revised
plan, if the nest tree falls tomorrow or whenever, the developer is still
obligated as required to purchase the mitigation land and build the
tàke tree. Not so under the current plan.
This pair and eagles in general will benefit from revising the
il1anagement plan. You are on finn legal ground, according to your
staff, in approving the proposed amendments. You have a choice
today to be pragmatic or dogmatic in your deliberations. Being
dogmatic, refusing to renegotiate the promise gets nothing meaningful
for the Wiggins Pass eagles and other eagles in the county.
We urge you to be pragmatic, practical, realistic, and
fOf\vard-thinking. Please support the amended Bald Eagle
NIanagement Plan. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is John Leonard. He'll be
follo\ved Dr. Cesare Gaspari.
MR. LEONARD: Good morning. John Leonard. I reside at 405
Seagrove Lane in the Dunes. My wife and I have been full-time
P,Hœ 83
~'
,.._~---"
May 10, 2005
residents there for two years. We got involved in the Dunes project
from the inception, bought preconstruction from the developers, as
have many of our friends and some family members. Have had
nothing but good experience -- experiences living there.
I'm a financial advisor in town. My wife is a licensed realtor.
We're both full-time residents, licensed to vote here in the county.
We have three young children, the youngest of which born just
three weeks ago. We're very concerned about the community, the
aesthetics that go on in the area, as well as the environment.
I'm here to say that without a doubt we have every expectation
that Signature would carry out all three of those things very
effectively in the new community, just as they have in the Dunes.
We've had nothing but positive experiences with Signature. Very few,
if any, problems ever. Any issues that have ever arisen have been
taken care of very quickly.
We firmly believe that their environmental tactics are very
forward thinking. Without a doubt, they've gone above and beyond
the call of duty in all their developments. We have little doubt that
they'd do the same here.
And personally, we'd like nothing better than for our kids, little
Claire Marie, who's our newest addition, John Michael, Jr., and our
daughter Amanda, to grow up having eagles in the environment and in
the vicinity, and we have no doubt that this plan would more than
likely give us the highest probability of ensuring that happening.
I also reiterate the fact that, again, they're dedicating over 91
percent of that land to green space conservation efforts, golf courses,
and a park. They could have put, you know, several hundred more
units on that property, and instead they've decided to be very
environmentally friendly, maintain the aesthetics of the community,
and gone well above the call of duty, jumped through hoops, to make
sure that the eagles were protected.
So again, I hope we make this truly about eagles and not about
Page 84
.____._..____.- ___"0
May 10. 2005
egos and do what's right for the community and go fonvard with the
project on behalf of Signature.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Dr. Cesare Gaspari. He'll be followed by Gary
Eidson.
DR. GASPARI: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Dr.
Gaspari, and I reside at 300 Dunes Boulevard in Naples.
I have a dual approach in support of Signature Communities'
approval of the Cocohatchee proj ect. Having a biology and a medical
background, I can express a scientific and a personal opinion in favor
of this development and the relocation of the bald eagle.
Although the eagle's national habitat includes coastal region for
feeding and tall tree for nesting or roosting, it is not restricted to a
specific tree for nesting or year-round residence, as they could becon1e
seasonal migratory and easily adapt to a new environment.
Eagles build large nests at the top of sturdy, tall trees. When a
nest or a tree is destroyed from a natural phenomenon, as a recent
hurricane, a shift in nesting location is noted, but it is often rebuilt
nearby by natural habitat instinct to continue the cycle of life.
A proposed man-made relocation as an artificial tree assists the
national process of adaptation and does not hinder their wildlife
progeny, since the bald eagle is monogamous -- I guess they have a
very low rate of divorce -- and \vill continue to procreate for life. Just
to break a little bit. They show a very -- a great sense of unity.
Anyway, Signature Communities has established rigid
foundations in Naples with high esteem, respect, and recognition,
developing quality communities, while preserving the natural habitat
of wildlife. Their interest is the relocation and preservation of the
local eagle \vhile developing a quality project and improvement of the
comn1unity .
I strongly recommend to you to approve this amendment for the
Baìd Eagle Management Plan.
Page 85
May 10,2005
Thank you for this opportunity to express my opinion.
MS. FILSON: The ne?Ct speaker is Gary Eidson. He'll be
followed by Diane Shanley.
MR. EIDSON: Good morning. My name's Gary Edison. I live
in Glen Eden, which is on Vanderbilt Drive directly across from the
proposed development.
I'm a little perplexed and confused as I stand here today because I
understand that we're going to be putting, at least according to staff, an
artificial tree outside of the PUD. If I misunderstood, I'd like that
corrected.
If that's the case, then this is a moot discussion because we're not
going to -- we're not going to get anything done here today because
we don't know if that tree's going to get built or not because it has to
go through that whole process, according to staff.
So that leaves me, we're having this wonderful discussion, and
yet we don't even know if that tree can be put up yet, and that's kind of
the hinge on this deal.
The other thing is that my people that live in my community,
which I was the past president and they speak to me quite a bit, they
have a question. They say, you know, we feel so helpless. We just --
we -- people make promises, and the commissioners don't support it. I
hope that isn't the case today.
Now, this thing about colloquialisms, I read that in the paper. I
never thought that a, conversation when somebody talked, was a
colloquialism. But somehow we've taken all these comments that
were on record, and we're just kind of putting them aside and saying,
oh, we didn't mean that. Something's wrong with that picture.
And doggone it, I'm sure these guys are good. I mean, they build
a nice place, and there's a lot of people living in it and they've made a
lot of money, and I understand now that we have an ,apology with a
gloved hand combined a threat with a fist, that if you don't do it my
\vay, it's going to cost you big bucks.
Page 86
....__"___.___.."h"..<..___~___'__
May 1 O~ 2005
Now, if they'd have come in here and talked to you about this
deal without the threat of Bert Harris, I'd say, maybe you've got
something going on. But by golly, there's nobody that should be
entitled to come before this commission with a steel hand saying that
if you d()n't do it my way, I'm going to knock you out financially,
because every developer in town will get that message, and then you
guys are going to be faced with one heck of a situation. I don't think
that's right.
So now we have a tree going up on a piece of land that doesn't
belong to them, we've got a steel hand threatening that if you don't do
it my way, it's the highway, and you've got citizens sitting there
saying, I feel helpless. I don't think the decision's hard. I think you
say, thank you very much, we appreciate you coming in, but no way.
Thank you very much for your time.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Diane Shanley. She'll be
followed by Brad Cornell.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That -- Ms. Shanley \vill be the last
speaker before lunch.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay? Then we're going to break.
Ms. Shanley, go ahead.
MS. SHANLEY: My goodness. My moment of fame.
For the record, I am Dianne Shanley from Collier's Reserve. I'n1
speaking as a private citizen and permanent resident of Collier
County.
I have, however, talked with the board of directors of
homeowners' association as well as many of our residents, and they
are all opposed to Signature's amendment to their Bald Eagle
rvranagement Plan.
I, too, was rather surprised \vhen I opened the Naples Daily Ne\vs
today and saw that the developer's attorney had \vritten to our county
attorney mentioning a Bert Harris act.
Page 87
May 10,2005
It seems that anytime a developer thinks he will lose an issue, he
threatens a lawsuit, and $159 million would surely get my attention.
But it is my belief -- and here I am paraphrasing the words of the 1995
Bert Harris Act -- that it's not the county's regulations which are
keeping the owner from being able to attain a reasonable investment
backed expectation of this property but rather the promises made in a
legal meeting before this board in December 2000.
In our April 21 st letter to the Collier County attorney, Attorney
Margaret Cooper referred to Karen Bishop's statements as merely
colloquialisms that shouldn't be binding on the developer. Well, I'd
like to ask what should be binding.
If the commissioners and the citizens of Collier County cannot
believe the promises made in a legal meeting, what can be believed?
How are you to make decisions if the testimony given cannot be relied
upon?
It's too bad that a certain ivory billed woodpecker couldn't
miraculously appear on this property, then we wouldn't even be here.
Unfortunately, this particular pair of eagles has been deemed
dispensable; however, they are part of the quality of life of those who
live in Collier County now, a quality of life that I believe is one reason
for which zoning regulations were originally designed.
When this PUD was granted, was it based on what was said
during that meeting in December 2000? If those words had not been
uttered, I believe that Signature Properties would not have received
their PUD grant.
And what about other promises made during that meeting? The
testimony indicates that the developer alluded to providing workforce
housing after a question asked by then junior Commissioner Coletta,
and I understand that this is part of the PUD.
But what if the developer decided to amend thi~ type of promise
because current market conditions make it untenable?
You commissioners must be able to make the reasonable
Page 88
~'"..._._......,.,~
May 10, 2005
assumption that decisions made in light of testimony in your meetings
means something, and we, the citizens, must believe it too, otherwise a
lot of time will be wasted in making sure that all documents dot every
I and cross every T. What is the purpose of these public meetings if
not to provide a means to craft rules that must be followed in order to
maintain the go-ahead to develop property in Collier County?
No one is saying that Signature builds shoddy developments and
that they would not offer value to Collier County; however, their
professionalism is not a reason to allow this amendment.
I'm just about finished.
These eagles have given -- were given the right by, and you
according to what was heard by the public, agreed to by
representatives of Signature Communities, to stay until they left of
ovvn their accord. That might be tomorrow, next year, or some
indeterminate future date.
Please do not allow the developer to coerce or threaten you.
V ote no on this amendment, as have both the EAC and the planning
conlmlSSlon.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Ms. Shanley.
Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to break for lunch. We'll be
back here promptly at one o'clock. We hope to see you then. Thank
you.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
NIr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're back in session. We will
continue with the public comment.
MS. FILSON: Okay. The next speaker is Brad Cornell. He'll be
follovved by Laura Jean Young.
[vIR. CORNELL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Brad
C o111ell, and I'm here on behalf of the Collier County Audubon
Page 89
May 10, 2005
Society.
I'm also here with a strong interest that our group has in the
welfare of bald eagles in Collier County, and I have to say that this has
been a long process and very painful and a very hard decision for us to
come to a position on.
As you have observed, it's contentious and it's difficult, and I
think it didn't have to be this way, but it is. I wish we could go back to
2000 and have the whole debate again. I think there are things that we
have learned in, you know, the five years since then, but we can't.
And so Collier County Audubon Society clearly believes that
mitigation now is the best option for the long-term interest of these
eagles.
As we have already heard, the purpose of eagle territory and a
trial of the artificial nest tree will not occur if the current tree falls
without approval of this amended Bald Eagle Management Plan.
And we feel that this is a practical issue. We're not standing up
here to support this project per see We're standing up here to say, we
need to salvage some mitigation.
We see that the developer in this project is offering mitigation
and to build this tree. And we think that the long-term interest of
eagles in Collier County, that that is what's going to be best.
Ultimately, what I believe we need is a county-wide plan to
protect bald eagle habitat up front before we get to the unfortunate
situation that we're in today.
The process that has brought us here has failed us, and I think
that that is what we need to address. But for this particular case, I
think we need to take the mitigation and, therefore, we recommend
approval of the amended Bald Eagle Management Plan.
Collier County Audubon Society, I believe, is to blame as much
as anybody for the lack of such a proactive plan that ,would cover
eagle habitat protection for the whole county. But we do stand ready
novv to \vork with that very plan with you and with our whole
Page 90
May 10, 2005
community.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Laura Jean Young. She'll be
followed by Doug Fee.
l'vlS.YOUNG: Good afternoon. My name is Laura Jean Young,
and live at 792 Eagle Creek Drive in Eagle Creek Country Club.
I was one of the members of the planning board who, I
reluctantly, approved the petition to build the high-rise condominiums,
towers, near an eagle's nest near eagle -- Wiggins Pass in the year
2000. I was sitting right where Commissioner Fiala is sitting.
And I wish to object strenuously to the threat now made by their
attorney that they will file a claim under the Bert Harris act to sue our
county for potential damages if we do not amend that Bald Eagle
Management Plan so that they can build now . You know, I come
from an older generation, a generation in which a n1an's word was his
bond. We didn't use attorneys who would litigate to nullify the intent
of the word as given.
Ladies and gentlemen, I was right here on the planning
comn1ission when their representative gave their word that they would
not build as long as that eagle's nest remained, and it remains.
We understood that this commitment was made on behalf of the
developer, and we voted on that assun1ption, and now we are faced
with threats from their attorney? They threaten us with a suit
an10unting to up to $150 million if we do not succumb to their current
desire to build those five towers, one which will be within 60 feet of
that eagle's nest.
'-'
We have no other choice, they say. No other choice? Whatever
became of integrity and planning? Whatever became of consistency
to one's word?
I can assure you that if we had not had that cOll1ll1itment, which I
considered binding, and I'm sure my colleagues did also, that I would
have voted against this project, and I believe that it would have failed
Page 91
May 10, 2005
approval by the commission then, too.
You have a difficult c~oice, but I urge you to stand by the
original agreement.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Doug Fee. He'll be followed
by Dick Macken.
MR. FEE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my
name is Doug Fee. I'm president of North Bay Civic Association.
And in the interest of being brief, I just want to urge you to make the
commitments and the statements that were made back in 2000 stand
for something, mean something to the neighborhood that these eagles
are located.
It's -- you can send a message out there that as you stand and you
go through those rezones, that your word is what matters, and tell the
community that those words do mean something and say no to this
rezone.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Dick Macken. He'll be
followed by Joe Moreland.
MR. MACKEN: My name is Dick Macken. I live at the
Villages of Emerald Bay; a condominium community located a short
distance north of the Cocohatchee Bay site.
I have reviewed the transcripts of the hearings held before the
Environmental Advisory Council, the planning commission, and the
Board of County Commissioners at the time the Cocohatchee Bay
PUD was approved in 2000.
What is very clear from reading the proceedings is that there was
great concern by all three county bodies that the eagles and their nests
be protected. The well being of the eagles was discussed at great
length, and agents speaking on behalf of the developer assured the
county that nothing would be done to drive the eagl~s from the
property .
The county and the developer reached an understanding on how
Page 92
May 10, 2005
the eagles would be handled that was laid out in the Bald Eagle
Habitat Management Plan that became part of the PUD document.
The management plan states -- you've seen this before, but I think
-- I think we need to really focus on this because their right to come
b(lc:k and request a change is not based on simply a desire to move
ahead, but there are two stipulations. They have to meet one of then1.
Either site conditions have to change or management techniques have
to change, and those are the only grounds that they can use to request
a change to the management plan.
Well, my contention is that neither of these things have changed.
The eagles and their nests are still their, and the birds raised two
fledglings this year.
Removal of the birds, as the developer is requesting, certainly
can't be considered the management technique nor can the completely
untried technology of the artificial tree. This will be the first artificial
tree built to attract eagles, and the chances of the eagles moving there
are slim to none.
Also, the eagle -- the tree is planned for a location in or very near
the territory of a pair of eagles nesting at the Audubon Country Club.
Since eagles are highly territorial, death or severe injury could result
to both pairs of eagles if the Cocohatchee Bay eagles try to move to
the artificial tree.
I think a fair reading of the transcripts shows that the PUD
wouldn't have been approved without the stringent measures put in
place to protect the eagles. Eagle management wasn't an afterthought
or a side issue, but a key component of the Cocohatchee Bay PUD
approval.
To let the developer walk away from his commitments now
\vould make a mockery of the \vhole planning process. It would send
a message to developers that they could promise anything and then
reneg on their obligations later \vhen it suited them.
The county is under no moral or legal obligation to ensure that
Page 93
.----..
May 10,2005
the developer's business plan works. Promises have been made, and
they need to be kept. .
I urge the commissioners to reject the developer's petition.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Joe Moreland. He'll be
followed by B.J. Savard-Boyer.
MR. MORELAND: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Mr.
Chairman. My name is Joe Moreland. I'm president of the Estuary
Conservation Association.
We've been tracking this issue as long as you have, since the year
2000. And I think I would predicate, or preface my comments on, that
I would really not like to be in the position you're sitting in right now
to actually be the person who had to cast a vote up or down.
With that having been said, I would say whichever way you vote,
I think this case is complex enough and is reasonable enough in many
ways on both sides that regardless of your decision, as they say, I'll
respect you in the morning.
But I believe that the moral -- moral compass of good governance
has, indeed, been steadily pointing in the direction that the
commission should take in doing what the public would perceive as
the right thing, and that is not to grant this petition.
The issue here, when you shred it all apart, is about the eagle. It
is not about the integrity of the builder, it is not about the members of
the public surrounding -- in the neighborhood and so forth. It is about
the eagle. Why is it about the eagle? Because the law has said it is
about the eagle, and there are procedures to be taken there.
There are legal opinions that are very valid and eloquently
articulated on both sides of the issue here. Which one are you
convinced about?
I am more convinced by the legal argument tha~ says that when
you put it in the context of what happened, in the year 2000 when this
issue first came before you, had this been the proposal that was made
Page 94
May 10, 2005
at that time, it would have failed. That proposal was -- this proposal
was not made at the time, b~t what they saw was that they were in
difficulty .
And all of us who have tried to present petitions to an
organization run into the difficulty, that I want to get this through and
I need to persuade them, and I will try to do what I can and, therefore~
you do make commitments. Are they legally binding commitments?
Don't know. We've heard both sides of that. I tend to believe they are.
What was said in the record, I think, is supported by the legal --
the legal authority supporting that, which is to say that the reasonable
n1an sitting at a reasonable hearing would walk away with a
reasonable thought that the commitment had been made that until the
eagle flew away, they would wait.
And I hear that that was incorrectly understood. Therein is where
the difficulty of your vote really comes. I don't know the answer to
that.
But it's still about the eagle. What I do know is that it would not
ha ve been approved at that time had not that occurred -- had not
probably that misunderstanding taken place, rightly or wrongly.
The commission, I believe, relied on that promise. I was
son1ewhat confused today when -- the hearing before the planning
con1111ission, when, I think it was Pan1 Mac'Kie, came forth and gave
very eloquent testimony as to her absolute positive determination that
that had been represented, and her vote was totally contingent upon
her understanding of that.
Then I hear the gentleman I've never heard before, who
apparently was a fonner county commissioner at that time, coming up
and saying the opposite. Hey, where do you go with that one? You
read the record, what was said, what would have you thought at that
tin1 e '?
Nothing has really changed. It's apparent that the commission
reìied on the understanding, whatever they understood.
Page 95
'-
May 10,2005
My reading of the record, my interpretation of the law, such as it
is, and of those whose legal. opinions I respect, and I want to cite
particularly the opinion cited by the Conservancy in letter form to the
commissioners, which I've read. I tend to concur with. I, therefore,
believe that you should do the right thing, but I also believe that the
right thing in this case would be to postpone, I should say, rather, deny
the granting of the petition.
I thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: I understand Ms. Boyer has left, so your final
speaker will be Dr. Robert Daly. Dr. Daly?
MR. DALY: Good day, Commissioners. I am Dr. Robert Daly,
a resident of Bay Forest on Vanderbilt Drive.
Before retiring I taught and did research on the development of
the nervous system in newborns at Johns Hopkins medical institutions
and the national institutes of health.
I am here today to differ with the good Dr. Gaspari and to give
testimony on the negative effects that the developer's proposal for an
artificial tree are most likely to have on the nesting pair and on their
offspring. This testimony will be based both on my own research and
on the extensive scientific literature that pertains to it.
We have often heard the phrase, management plan in the context
of these hearings, but its main feature seems to be proposal to
construct an expensive fake tree of hazardous materials using a
technology that is unproven for avian nesting, while ignoring the
well-established precedent of constructing nesting platforms for
ospreys of natural materials. This, to me, seems irresponsible.
As for the artificial tree, it may look like a real tree to us, but we
are not the judges here, the eagles are. And according to the
developer's own consultant, all the eagles require is ~ nesting platform
that is the highest point in the area.
So \vhat is the value of the artificial tree aside from an obvious
Page 96
May 10, 2005
PR value to the developer? The structure would have a surely negative
Í111pact on the eagles, and there are at least two reasons why.
First, the petrochemical materials used to cover the steel frame
will degrade in the weather and ultraviolet light. As they do so, they
wi]] release complex hydrocarbon gasses that would be inhaled by the
eagles and their chicks. Some gases will certainly induce stress, and
they're likely to be carcinogenic.
Secondly, the steel frame anchored in the earth will generate
low-level electromagnetic fields, and rather than dissipating fully in
the air, the covering of the petro covering skin will most likely
concentrate and funnel the EMFs upward toward the nesting platfol111.
Electromagnetic field exposure has been known for more than 60
years to cause cancers, and low level EMFs, especially, has been
sho\vn to cause genetic mutations in avian chicks.
I understand that a permit was granted for the construction of this
artificial tree. I doubt that the permitting agency would have granted
that pem1it if it had access to the information I have just suggested to
you.
So we have what appears to be an imprudent and simplistic effort
from the management plan, which is really nothing more than the
device to gain dominion over the eagles. As most of us here, these
eagles are your constituents, and you have the opportunity to protect
then1.
I appreciate the sentiments of the other agencies that are desirous
of protecting the eagles, and I hope that if you approve this
management plan provision, you specify that a nesting -- excuse me --
that a nesting platform of natural materials be used to prohibit this
artificial tree.
Thank you for your time.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, that's your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Do any of the commissioners have any questions of the public?
Page 97
May 10, 2005
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE.: Then I will close the public hearing.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- Brad Cornell is, I guess, the
public speaker that I would have a question for, but I didn't know that
you would allow that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know that he's been involved
in this issue for quite a while, and as far as the alternative fake tree, if
that is not constructed, what is his take on the likelihood of the eagles
staying in -- within the Wiggins Pass area?
MR. CORNELL: My take on this is that the most important
aspect of mitigation is the purchase and/or protection of an eagle
habitat territory in Collier County. Ifwe can get it in Collier County, I
think that's most important.
The nesting tree, the artificial nesting tree is an experiment. I
think it's an experiment worthy of trial and worth doing.
And I think that I would like to hear what Mr. Godley has to say
about the territorial issue, whether it's too close to the Audubon
Country Club eagles. But aside from that issue, I think it's worth
trying to keep the eagles at Wiggins Pass. And if they don't have that
tree, I think some other kind of inducement to keep them in the area.
They're -- as we've heard --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Short rope.
MR. CORNELL: No, no. As we've heard on the property of this
particular proj ect, that there aren't the trees of stature and strength that
would suffice. But I would hope that there would be something that
could be done to help keep them in the territory. But more important
than that is the protection of another territory like through acquisition
or conservation easement.
Does that ans\ver your question?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think you're correct.
Page 98
May 10, 2005
The experts -- and I think you have a lot of knowledge in this, but the
experts can tell us about the territorial --
MR. CORNELL: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- aspect of it.
~{n~~. CORNELL: I don't have an answer for that and I know
what the distances are, and I hadn't thought of that until I heard it
today, so that's a good question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any other questions by Commissioners?
Did you have yours -- your questions answered?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Accept for the territorial.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want to ask somebody to try to
address that issue?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think you do have some exerts
on the issue is -- what is the spacing on the territorial of the --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can answer -- we were going to
address that point in our wrap-up, but I'll have him do that right no\v.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'd like to make this as brief as possible.
okay? We don't need to rehash a lot of the old --
'"
MR. GODLEY: I'll try, Commissioners. Steve Godley.
And just so you're aware, the agencies kne\v about the Audubon
pair and the Cocohatchee pair. The distance from the artificial tree to
the Audubon, the pair, is about 4,000 feet. It's a little bit farther than
that for the Cocohatchee pair. I have seen the Cocohatchee pair in the
vicinity of the artificial nesting tree.
The other thing you need to be aware is that eagles do not fight to
the death or injury as a result of having adjacent territories. They are
territory -- territorial, but they don't fight to the death.
There are territories in other counties where the trees are as little
as 200 yards apart. And in Lee County now, because of the densely
packed number of pairs, the conlll1ission's having a problem telling
which telTitory number is \vhich because the birds are so close
together.
'-
Page 99
May 10,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Any other questions of the
speakers by the commissio~ers?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Hearing none, I'm going to close
the public testimony -- or public comment portion of this hearing.
You'll have five minutes to recap and rebut.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And then the staff will have an
opportunity .
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Well, briefly then. I want to point
out, we have a letter from the manufacturer of the tree contradicting
everything the last gentleman said, and he points out that this
technology is utilized in zoos throughout the country, including for
eagles and baby eagles, so I'll enter that in for the record.
Also, I want to point out that Commissioner Mac'Kie did, in fact,
send an e-mail to you all, and I just wanted to make that part of the
record. And I think it's a fair summarization. Since I only have five
minutes, I don't want to read the entire thing.
It's a fair summarization for her to say that when she brought the
motion to approve this, it was not with the requirement that
construction wait until the eagles left.
She states in her e-mail, much to what Commissioner Carter said,
is that she'd been an experienced commissioner, and if she -- if that
needed to be a requirement in her mind, she would have made it as
part of the motion. She did not do that, so it was not a condition that
she included in her motion when she made the motion to approve the
project. And I'll add that to the record.
People -- for some reason people don't want to accept that PUDs
are amended all the time. This is not the first time someone's brought a
PUD amendment to the Board of County Commissi~ners. For some
reason we're evil because we're bringing a PUD amendment to the
commISSIoners.
Page 100
--'.--.---
May 10. 2005
And I'm saying, let me explain to you why we want to amend the
PUD and that there are changed circumstances and there are changed
mitigation, and the eagle's doing a lot better than it was doing in the
year 2000.
A,nd we've come to with you consideration for the change, and
we're talking about buying additional habitat. We're talking about
trying some new technology.
Just because someone hasn't tried it before doesn't mean you
shouldn't try it. I mean, talk about all the medical experiments that
have gone on where someone had to be the first to try something.
Someone was the first person to try a heart transplant, someone was
the first person to try chemotherapy.
What we're talking about is, let's try something new. Does it
make sense in this particular case to try something new? And we say
it does because you're in a dead tree that's going to fall down.
So why don't we try something new that may replace that dead
tree and provide additional habitat for eagles in Collier County?
Our proposal is consistent with what the stakeholders group
brought to you not too long ago when talking about l11anaging listed
species. That stakeholders group recommended that you would honor
Incidental Take Permits in Collier County if mitigation was provided
in Collier County, and that's what we're talking about doing. We're
talking about providing an artificial tree in Collier County near the
existing territory and also providing additional habitat by acquiring
additional habitat.
What you have before you today is, what's better for eagles in
Collier County? You've heard both Brad Cornell and Nancy Payton
tell you what's better for the eagle community in Collier County. You
haven't heard any testimony from anybody on the environmental side
that contradicted that. Nobody has addressed the issue of what's better
for eagles in Collier County.
The whole focus has been on a statement that was made and, yes.
Page 101
May 10, 2005
the statement was made, and we're saying we'd like to change the
PUD, and here's what we're, offering you in exchange for amending
the PUD. That's a process that goes on fairly routinely before you all.
You're not strangers to amendments of the PUD because
circumstances change.
That doesn't mean that they didn't honor the deal they had before.
They're saying, I had a deal. I want to come to and you talk to you
about changing the deal, and that's what we're here to talk to you
about today.
The -- another question was in talking about public trust and the
process. Well, we're in the process. We're following the process that
you follow in doing an amendment to the PUD. We're going -- we
went through three public hearings and we're saying -- and I'm taken a
little bit aback by the fact that we're going through a process that's
open, and everybody's saying to you, well, you shouldn't avail
yourself to the process.
Nobody wants to focus on what is the county getting in return for
an amendment to this PUD. What are the eagles of Collier County
getting in return for amending this PUD. Nobody wants to focus on
that. I don't know why. But you haven't heard one expert or pseudo
expert contradict the eagle experts that are before you, including the
eagle expert from the state who said, you know, I think this is a great
idea. We need to go ahead and go forward with this.
We request that you follow your staffs recommendation, that you
honor the pennit, that you look out for the best interest of the eagles in
Collier County, and we submit that our plan is in the best interest for
the eagles of Collier County.
And with that, I'm available to answer any questions and our
experts are available to answer any question you can have regarding
our testimony or petition. .
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Just help me with this a
Page 102
May 10, 2005
little bit, Mr. Y ovanovich. Ms. Mac'Kie said she never understood that
this was part of the agreement?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: She said she never said it was a
requirement, that she didn't -- her motion was not contingent upon the
deve10pnlent not going forward until the eagles left. She said if it \vas
contingent upon that, she would have put it in the motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then why are we here?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're here because there's an attached
Bald Eagle Management Plan that needs to be amended.
People are saying we never would have gotten the original PUD
in the first place unless we promised that we would never come
forward and amend the PUD to expedite the construction of the
towers. We have to amend our PUD, and that's why we're going
through the process. But she never said that you gave up that right to
come forward --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.: No, she never did.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- and amend the PUD.Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But the impression I was getting
\vas, is that this never was in there. It is in there, the fact that --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There's a Bald Eagle Management Plan
that says at the current time we're not going to go forward with the
residential unless site condition changes or mitigation -- or
management techniques change. And we submit to you, management
techniques have changed, and that's why we're here to amendment
PUD.
We did have a commitment in the PUD at the time that we
couldn't build those residential to\vers without amending the existing
Bald Eagle Management Plan. And that's what we're here to do, and
that's the process \ve've been follo\ving, and we've been true to the
\vards adopted in the PUD.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Now \ve'vejust got
Page 103
'-
May 10, 2005
discussion between us and the commissioners; is that correct?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you want to question the petitioner,
you can. We do have the staffs opportunity for rebuttal and summary.
If you would like to wait until after the staff --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let's do that then.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Staff, do you have anything you want to
tell us? If anything has been said here by anyone that you don't agree
with, we need to understand that.
MR. BOSI: Chairman Coyle, one statement I do want to get, and
I think the board does need to consider it when making the
deliberations in whatever recommendations for approval, if you would
recommend approval, as I had mentioned, for the construction of the
artificial tree, which is highlighted within the amended Bald Eagle
Management Plan, that would have to go through the ST process.
One, there is no guarantee of the ultimate approval of that petition. It
would be based upon the merits of the conditions that were presented
within the application.
But I would say that the commission, if granted approval of this
amendment today, would probably want to put a time frame or a
mandate as to when this process was to be started.
I would also like to note that based upon the direction of
Assistant County Attorney Marjorie Student, I had received a revised
Bald Eagle Management Plan that actually had dates associated with
the construction of each of the buildings, so there is a much more rigid
in time frame for when the -- when this -- the phasing of the project
would be laid out with the building five, the first building, the
northernmost building, no earlier than the non-nesting season of 2005
to be started.
And another point that, there's been conversations with the
environmental staff, really the -- this proposed amen~ent to the Bald
Eagle Management Plan -- the existing Bald Eagle Management Plan
that exists with the PUD is for how the bald eagle is to be managed on
Page 104
May 10, 2005
the property.
The revised Bald Eagle Management Plan is really -- is not for
the co-existence of the eagle on the property, but it's for the creation
and the mitigation of off-site properties, of two off-site properties for
eagle habitat, and it is subtle, but it is a distinction.
With that, staff has nothing else to add.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
And Commissioner Halas, you want to continue?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In my understanding here, the
petitioner says that, you know, we're here to amend the PUD. We can
either amend it or turn it down, that's our options.
The second part of this that concerns me is that we're really not
talking about the PUD. We're talking about additional lands outside
the boundaries of the PUD; is that correct?
MR. BOSI: For the -- for the location of the off-site, or for the
artificial tree, yes, sir, correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And this was never brought up in
the discussion when the PUD was originally discussed back in the
year 2000, so this is all brand new; is that correct?
MR. BOSI: It is correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There are many statements on
the record about -- this record about the previous record, about
statements made by the developer's representation.
And it's my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, is any time
the Board of Commissioners enter into an agreement, it's what's in the
agreement.
And your staff, County Manager, does it go by the agreement
exclusively, or does it take into the public record what is said to
enforce the board's agreement?
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, I'm going to -- I'm going to have
Page 105
May 10, 2005
to go over and look at the county attorney on this one. Because of
what's been said in differen~ letters about outcomes and whatnot, and I
want to be very -- I want to be very careful on this particular case, so
I'm going to defer to Mr. Weigel to answer that question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me ask the question,
because it is your staff in this case that writes the site development
plan or plat of plan or permits based upon a PUD. Do they go back
into the record and use what is said on there, or do they base it upon
PUD, land development code, and growth management plan?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, since I've been the county
manager, whenever there's been a concession or anything on the
record that isn't in the published document that you have in front of
you, staff goes back and grabs those concessions and puts them into
the document before the chair signs it, and it gets filed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And I know that a lot of
times things are stated up in here, and I know I -- you've seen some
heartburn from me where things were stated but it wasn't in the PU
(sic) document or the request and -- many cases that we've continued
that.
And I've felt bad about approving things in the past when we
have been told that if it's not in the growth management plan, the one
case where it was not in the growth management plan, that we cannot
demand it. So that really woke me up and made sure that whatever's
stated that is important to me is in the document. So I just wanted to
make that clear.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any other questions by commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Okay. Now, it's up to us.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, let me just start off that when
I was elected as a commissioner here in Collier County, I took an oath
Page 106
May 10, 2005
to uphold the laws and abide by the decisions, not only by this
commission, but by the State of Florida, and take that very seriously.
I also take it very seriously when people come before us, and I
trust their integrity and honesty when they come forth and state on the
rec()rd ...- 'whether it's put into writing or not -- but when it's stated on
the record, I will do this or I will do that, that means an awful lot, and
it carries an awful lot of weight with me.
So, therefore, I cannot approve this -- the change in the Eagle
Management Plan. It has nothing to do with the eagles. It has nothing
-- it could be -- this can be a raccoon in a tree. The thing is the
integrity of the people, when you're going through the process of
working out a PUD and the items that are discussed at that time to
make this PUD a binding document. I take it very seriously. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any other commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion for disapprove --
not approving this amendment.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion by Commissioner
Halas for disapproval, a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Is there any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Don't we have to state why
we're disapproving?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you do that, you should do that.
MR. WEIGEL: I would prefer that you state the reasons why.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The reason being is that, because of
lO.03.05.J, I think basically tells it all, and that is in regards to the--
the information that was put forth in the PUD at the time that it was
voted on originally and the stipulations that were given.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you mind a suggestion?
Is it possible, David, to accept the recommendations of the CCPC
Page 107
'-'
May 10, 2005
with regard to a number of different sections of our growth
management plan and LDC7
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it's possible. You'd want to make sure that
their assertions are correct, I would hope, as you adopt or attempt to
implement those into your determination.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Have you had time to review what
the planning commission put forth down in record?
MR. WEIGEL: Time, yes, and review, yes, we've done that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So then if I go ahead and
amend my motion to cover all the different -- the additional
information that came out of the planning commission, that should
cover it, right, along with the 10. -- what'd I say, 10.03.05.J?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: .05.1. Yeah. Just to summarize those,
the CCPC indicated the proposal failed to satisfy LDC section
10.03.05.E.2, and LDC section 10.03.05.J, and objective 7.1 of the
growth management plan, and section 3.04.01.C.3.A, were the
reasons. They also felt that it was in conflict with section 3.04.02.E.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. I would suggest, while Ms. Student
prepares to respond, that the recitation of these citations may not assist
the public in knowing what those elements are. We will -- if you don't
have those, we will repeat those listing the citation with the element so
that is expressed on the record.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I need to state on the record -- for
the record, Assistant County Attorney Marjorie Student-Stirling.
And in your packet, there are the eight criteria that are found in
the land development code for whether you deny or approve this
amendment to the PUD document, and they're the -- it's entitled,
findings for PUD with the petition name.
And really, the planning commission took some things out of the
code that really relate to the compo plan, and they to~k some things
that also relate to statements made on the record being contractual.
But that -- what happened in the PUD document is that because
Page 108
May 10, 2005
of the Eagle Management Plan, they can't go forward, so -- anyway,
and that's why they're here amending the PUD. What my recommend
-- and also they found it inconsistent with the compo plan.
So my recommendation would be to look at your Exhibit A here
in your staff report, that should be on page -- right after page 10 where
their sign-off is, and then there are the eight criteria that staff used,
and among that is the compo plan issue.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Page 10 on the bottom or -- Exhibit
A, okay.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Exhibit A.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, this is completely different
than what was given by the planning commission.
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: It's not entirely different, because
there were some findings about consistency with the compo plan in the
planning commission motion having to do with the policy 7.1.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm going to leave my motion as it
stands since the county attorney says that they've approved all of the
recommendations by the planning commission.
MR. WEIGEL: I peg your pardon, that who has approved all the
recommendations of the planning commission?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe that you stated that you
had -- had basically gone through what the planning commission had
approved and -- or have it stipulated, and that as far as you were
concerned, that we were within the guidelines of -- what the
stipulations by the county commission came forth.
MR. WEIGEL: No. Actually you asked if I'd had time to
review, and I said time, yes, review, yes, and that we would respond to
the planning commission's basis for its recommendation of denial.
Ms. Student has attempted to indicate that part of the -- that there
are criteria that both the planning commission and this board are to
use. It's the same criteria that the staff uses, and to the extent that the
planning has gone beyond, and Ms. Student indicated that, has gone
Page 109
J>,.. .<'_"
May 10,2005
beyond and addressed and referenced some aspects of the compo plan
which are outside the stand':ird of review for this, that I would say that
county attorney respectfully disagrees with certain aspects of the
reason for the recommendation of the planning commission.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, then, I'll just go back on my
original motion and say that the reason for denial of this is based on
10.03.05.J --
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- because of prior stipulations that
were brought forth, and today we're adding additional information
that's not even within the PUD, the original PUD.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's factually correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My second holds.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I need to get a clarification from you on
this.
Under the findings for the PUD on Exhibit A, there is item
number three, conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the growth management plan.
Now, why is it that that Commissioner Halas cannot specify
anything that he thinks is inconsistent with the growth management
plan?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: He can.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I thought he just did.
MS. STUDENT: I believe that the item that he was referencing
had to do with conditions and safeguards provision in the land
development code having to do with the approval of the document,
and that's not in the compo plan. That's in the land development code.
Unless I'm --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess I'm asking you for
assistance on what area of the land development cod~ I need to be
referencing to. That's why we have county attorneys.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, sir, I understand that. And the
Page 110
May 10, 2005
sections that need to be referenced have to do with the criteria that are
set forth in your staff report, labeled as Exhibit A, and they are found
in the land development code.
And one of the planning commission's -- as part of their motion,
they included a finding of inconsistency with -- I think it was
characterized as policy 7.1 of the CCME, which would be the
conservation and coastal management element.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So are we looking at page 18,
which is located in the upper right-hand corner, or are we looking at
rezone findings, page 20?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: We are looking at rezone findings.
These are the criteria that are listed in the land development code for
whether or not to grant this particular petition. And what I'm saying
is, as part of the planning commission motion, it included a finding of
inconsistency with the compo plan.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then can Commissioner Halas restate
that finding on his own?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Ifhe restates it that way, that
should be fine.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that has to do with objective 7.1 of
the growth management plan --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's a -- 7.1 of the plan here. Are
we on the right track here?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, you're on a track to make a decision citing
standards. Yes, you're on the right track of putting standards in the
record to make a decision.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we're looking at objective 7.1,
and if we look the FLUE, then we're looking at -- are we looking at
5.4 of the FLUE?
Page 111
'-'
May 10,2005
MS. STUDENT: Yes, that was part of the planning commission.
You could include that as well.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do we have the clearly stated
motion? Do we understand what it is?
County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, I'll look to repeat the motion. Mr.
Halas may want to assist me. But Mr. Halas has indicted a motion to
deny petition for amendment to the Bald Eagle Management Plan of
the PUD, 2000-88, I think, citing lO.03.05.J --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Correct.
MR. WEIGEL: -- and additionally indicating an inconsistency
with the growth management plan -- Marjorie, assist me, perhaps--
7.1 ?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 7.1.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: 7.1.
MR. WEIGEL: Including 7.1.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then the FLUE of 5.4.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a -- a motion by
Commissioner Halas, a second by Commissioner Fiala, and we have
questions by Commissioners Coletta and Henning.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I just want to recap a little
bit, see where this is going and where we came from.
I don't believe back many years ago when I was a new
commissioner and this came before us that I would have approved it if
the eagle plan was up for grab. I really don't.
But, however, with that said, I do recognize the,right of the
petitioner to come back and ask for us to consider amending the plan.
What's so difficult is we have a community here that's very
Page 112
May 10, 2005
divided on the issue. We have people on both sides, including the
environmental community. . One side and then they're the other.
We know eventually that the tree's going to fall and we know
eventually the condominiums are going to be built. There's no doubt
about that.
We know that there's certain amenities that come our way if we
were to agree -- and I'm not suggesting that we do -- with the whole
plan as being presented, the changes to the plan, we get the artificial
tree set up, we -- and I'm not too sure what all the other amenities are,
but eventually this thing is going to come to a conclusion.
Whether it's going to be tonight, tomorrow, or six months from
now or two years from now, it's going to be coming to a conclusion
where the tree's going to fall and they're going to build their buildings.
They're not going to put up the artificial tree. I thought that was part
of the original agreement, to be honest with you. I'm seeing now that
it isn't. But I can remember the discussion that took place.
I'm wondering if we might not want to think about, instead of
approving what they're asking for, if this motion fails, look at the
possibility of allowing them to build only building five, which is at the
far perimeter of their -- of their PUD, and then from there, be able to
work backwards on it.
But meanwhile we've got a motion on the floor, and I want to
listen to the rest of the arguments on it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm a little concerned here about
the record, why we're denying this. In 7.1 policy, I mean, you have
statements where the commissioners will defer to the state and federal
agencies as far as listed species, and it also says -- says a lot within
that incompatible growth in natural habitat.
And the solution is exactly what the majority of this board, and
excluding myself, wants to do, is create management plans for listed
species, being the cockaded -- red-headed cockaded woodpecker. And
Page 113
May 10,2005
here you have somebody applying inclusionary to themselves, and
we're not going by the dire~tion by the majority of the Board of
Commissioners.
And since the -- I don't think the record is complete for denial,
I'm very concerned that we're turning this into another Aquaport and,
therefore, I won't support the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And all we've had a couple of
times where we should have addressed this issue, and if my memory
serves me right, we asked the county attorney the last time that we
were trying to vote on a listed species, that we were going down a
greasy slope here, and, of course, he said, yes, because we don't --
didn't have any way of really protecting the issues before us.
As I said before, the majority -- or the main portion of my motion
is not so much the eagles. It was so much the integrity of the people
that were before this commission years ago in regards to this.
And, of course, I've been diligent in the last three years to try to
build the trust of this community in regards to -- that they can trust
government when we're in an open session, open forum, where public
is here either present or whether they're watching television and
watching the process unfold. And promises that were made before, I
think, need to be adhered to.
But I believe that -- to finish up, I believe if we look at the 7.1
statute, it says the county shall direct incompatible land uses away
from listed animal, species, and their habitats.
So I believe that as it's stated, this tree is going to fall. Probably
will fall tomorrow, might fall two days from now, might be two years
from now, but we're not in a position here that we're denying the
developer that he can't develop some of his property.
There's that finger portion that was brought up ~n discussion
whereby he can place some housing in there. He's got the golf course
to work on. And as was brought up here just a second ago by one of
Page 114
May 10, 2005
my fellow commissioners, I believe that they have the ability to go
forward to build at least one of these towers in the secondary zone so
long as they do it outside of the nesting season.
So I still stand firm of the motion I made.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. With regard to my vote, when
I voted originally back in December of 2000, I voted because of what
everybody said. I sincerely believed there was an Eagle Management
Plan and change. I don't think anybody doesn't have integrity. I think
they have a right to ask.
But the only reason I voted for it in the first place, when Mr.
Nino was saying that, you know, they wouldn't build without -- you
know, I mean, if that eagle was there, they would -- they wouldn't
build.
And I took a little bit of comfort in knowing that they had a plan
B, but they had also presented to us knowing that they could do
something with their land until the eagles flew off.
All of the -- all of the hearing contained things that comforted me
about respecting the eagle's nest, and so forth, being there. So this is
why the 10.03.05.1 is just exactly what I feel. That's the way I voted.
And just like with the planning commission and the EAC, I think
we all voted the same way. That was my understanding, and I felt that
everything was in the public record once it was stated.
So I just want to go on record as saying that that's what my no
vote is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I would like to ask a
question of Mr. Yovanovich, if I may.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Yovanovi~h, you just -- you
heard Commissioner Halas just a moment ago state that, you know,
you could start some construction prior to the tree falling. Is that
Page 115
May 10, 2005
correct, or no?
MR. YOV ANOVICH:: He was referring to building number five
in the secondary zone, and he's wrong.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Ifwe were to --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We do not have the ability right now -- if
you look at the Bald Eagle Management Plan, it does not allow
building five to be constructed right now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Let me finish just a
minute. I'll push your button and you can talk right after me.
Allow development to go forward with building five, we could
do that, we could do that now, and that would involved an amendment
to the Bald Eagle Management Plan and the master plan attached to it.
The construction would be, of course, during the non-nesting
season. Include a condition that the Bald Eagle Management Plan be
reviewed again next fall to see if consideration should be given to go
forward with the rest of it. Of course, that's contingent upon the tree
and, of course, contingent upon the artificial tree being put up. We'd
have to have staffs feedback on that.
And then you would be able to do buildings one through four at
that point in time that the tree either falls or we feel that the tree that's
been put into place meets all the needs, the artificial tree, would be
able to take the place of that tree. Is that something your client could
agree to?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner, they're shaking their head
no, for a couple of reasons. And I want to point out, if I can, as you all
are aware, the secondary zone has basically become deregulated.
You can built, you start a tower in the secondary zone in the
non - nesting season and continue to construct -- to construct through
the nesting season. Nobody's going to build a tower, start it and stop
and start again, and then -- that's one issue. And the ,then the issue of,
you know, going forward with the other towers contingent upon
another process where we don't know -- the outcome doesn't really
Page 116
May 10. 2005
n1ake any sense.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, let's put it this way. rfwe
could write this in such a way that you could build building number
five, which is far removed from where the nesting tree is and also
con~:truct a tree in the background, you know, where it's supposed to
be so that we -- a little bit of both worlds would take place, you could
actually start, be made whole.
This is something I'm offering you that, I'll be honest with you, if
this is not something that's acceptable, I'm going to vote with my two
other colleagues here that have already expressed their opinion.
Do you want to go out in the hall for a minute and talk about it?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I mean, you're only talking about, you
know, a small --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Wait. We've got a motion on the
floor, I believe, don't we? Point of order.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you want to consider an alternative
after this l11otion is done with, then we'll do it.
But Commissioner Halas, did you want to say anything more?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then I'm going to call this
n10tion. All in favor of the motion to deny, please signify by saying
ave.
01
COlVIMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye, okay.
Then the motion to deny the petition is approved by a vote of
4-1. \vith Commissioner Henning dissenting.
No\v, is there any other altenlative that -- COilll11issioner Coletta
Page 1 1 7
··____m.
.,.,._,-,--".
May 10, 2005
was going down another path.
Is that appropriate at t4is point in time or is this denial final,
David?
MR. WEIGEL: I think you've taken your vote. The denial is
final at this hearing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Item #8C
PUDZ-2003-AR-4493, SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS PUD,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE-
FAMIL Y-6 (RMF-6) TO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) TO BE KNOWN AS THE SANTA
BARBARA LANDINGS PUD FOR PROPERTY LOCA TED AT
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RADIO ROAD AND SANTA
BARBARA BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 50
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA-
MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 BCC
MEETING - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item, and
I'm going to -- I'm going to ask David a question.
During my change that I read in my -- the board agenda changes
this morning, I read the continuance of item 8A. I did not read the
continuance of 8C, but you did vote on the agenda and the summary
agenda.
David, do I need a motion on 8C to be continued?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion. Oh, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They want it continued to
Page 118
May 10, 2005
\vhen?
MR. MUDD: Sir, it says, this item -- to June 28th, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Wouldn't be it more appropriate.
since we already -- we continued this once before, didn't we? Am I
wrong?
MS. FILSON: Yeah. It was on the change sheet.
MR. MUDD: We've continued this off of the April 12th agenda
to today, and the petitioner's asking for another continuance until June
28th.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Wouldn't it be possibly better, to
everybody's advantage, if we continued this to September?
MR. MUDD: Your agendas are pretty tight, as I said before,
during this --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion that we
continue it for the first meeting in September.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second.
MR. MUDD: Septenlber 13th is -_
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: September 13th.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You -- 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: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It's unanimous. We've postponed
that one till September 13th.
Iten1 #8D
PaQe 119
May 10,2005
PUDZ-2004-AR-6258, ELIAS BROTHERS COMMUNITIES AT
PALERMO COVE, INC., REPRESENTED BY DWIGHT
NADEAU, OF RW A, INC., AND CHUCK BASINAIT, OF
HENDERSON, FRANKLIN, STARNES & HOLT, P.A.
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM THE AGRICULTURE ZONING
DISTRICT TO THE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT TO BE KNOWN
AS PALERMO COVE PUD, CONSISTING OF 131 ACRES AND A
MAXIMUM OF 524 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS. THE
PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF WOLFE ROAD, WEST OF
COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951), IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP
48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA _
MOTION FAILS; SECOND MOTION TO CONTINUE AND TO
WORK WITH HOUSING DIRECTOR - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item,
which is 8D. This item was continued from the April 26th, 2005,
BCC meeting. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and
ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's PUDZ-2004-AR-6258, Elias Brothers Communities at
Palermo Cove, Inc., represented by Dwight Nadeau RW A, Inc., and
Chuck Basinait of Henderson, Franklin, Starnes, Holt, P .A., requesting
a rezone from the agricultural zoning district to the residential planned
unit development (RPUD) zoning district to be known as the Palermo
Cove PUD consisting of 131 acres and a maximum 524 residential
dwelling units.
The property is located north of Wolfe Road, east ( sic) of __
excuse me -- is located north of Wolfe Road, west of Collier
Boulevard, County Road 951, in Section 34, Townsl?-ip 48 south,
Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioners, how about any
Page 120
May 10, 2005
ex parte disclosure.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have no disclosures on 8D.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
C:().L\v1MISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I've had some meetings.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I have had meetings with the
representatives of the petitioner, and I have talked with staff.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I spoke to Golden Gate Fire
Rescue Chief, Don Peterson.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I'll ask Commissioner Fiala for her
disclosure when she returns to the desk.
Could you please swear everyone in. Everyone who intends to
give testimony, please stand, be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Mr. Y ovanovich, are you the glutton for punishment today, aren't
you? I hope you're being paid well.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know, based on the last vote.
Good afternoon. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of
the petitioner. With me today are two representatives of Elias
Brothers, Rick Mercer and Clark Fleming. Also on the consultant
tean1 are Attorney Chuck Basinait. Dwight Nadeau is the planner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hold on.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Do you want me to wait until you have a
quonu11 ?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep. We've had another conlll1issioner
desert the desk.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll go find him.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We've got another one deserted.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's like trying to herd cats. It's really
,
baa.
Page 121
May 10, 2005
MR. MUDD: Sir, you want to take a 10-minute break.
MR. YOV ANOVICH:, That would be great.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's take a five-minute break. You need
10-minutes to recover?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If you don't mind.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, 10 minutes.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chainnan, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're going to try this again.
Commissioner Fiala, do you have any ex parte disclosure for this
item ?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've had a meeting with the
petitioner and his attorney. Hold on just a minute. I'm sorry that I'm
taking a moment here. This is the -- this is 8D, right?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. Yes. I've had a meeting
with the petitioner and his attorney, and also with a couple other
people on this particular item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Mr. Yovanovich?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I might say a couple of other people
out of his office that came with him to the meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Please continue.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Again, for the record, Rich
Y ovanovich, introducing the team pretty quickly Rick Mercer and
Clark Fleming from Elias Brothers; Dwight Nadeau from RW A, the
planner on the project; Ted Treisch from Metro, who is one of our
transportation consultants; Reed Jarvi ±rom Vanasse, Daylor, another
one of our traffic consultants; and Alana Hoffman from Passarella and
Associates regarding environmental issues. .
There are properties located in Section 34, Township 48 south,
Range 26 east, Collier County. It's located off of Wolfe Road, and it's
Page 122
Mav 10. 2005
" ~
about a mile and a quarter from Immokalee Road. It's near several
projects that you've seen recently, Wolfe Creek, naming one of them.
It's a rezone of 131 acres from agricultural to residential planned
unit development. We're asking for 524 units. There are
approxirnately 38 acres that will be designated as preserve in the
proj ect and will have a minimum of 60 percent open space on the
project.
I'm going to show you a locational map to sho\v you exactly
where we are, and you've dealt with some issues in this area fairly
recently. Nicaea Academy is now known as Warm Springs. We're
adjacent to Summit Place to our east and north of a portion of our
proj ect, Island Walk is to our west, Wolfe Creek is to our south, and
Indigo Lakes is to our north.
As you can see, we've laid out the master plan to where our
preserves join up with -- actually, let me move forward with that one.
Weare -- we are attempting -- we are doing 524 units, as I said,
and we're talking about doing single-family detached and attached
product at this time. Ultimate access, there will be two ultimate access
points. One will be Wolfe Road, which will bring us to 951, and
Pristine Drive, which will bring us to the south to Vanderbilt Beach
Road. Those will be our ultimate two access points.
We have entered into an agreement with the developer of Wolfe
Creek to expedite the construction of Pristine Drive, so our access
initially will be from Vanderbilt Beach Road and not from 951.
We have worked with Wolfe Creek, as I mentioned. We have
worked with the Golden Gate fire district to address issues in the past.
If you will recall, the Community Lutheran School was coming
through originally a IO-acre piece, and that I O-acre piece ultimately
\vas desired by your transportation department to put a pond on it.
That made the school not feasible.
What Elias Brothers did is they acquired another 10-acre piece a
little bit further north on 95 I, and swapped -- thank you swapped the
Page 123
May 10, 2005
land with the school.
The bottom line is for Elias Brothers to do that, Elias Brothers
lost about $275,000 in the deal. They basically had to pay too much
to Mr. Yurewitch to get his property, swapped it out for property that
was a little less.
Under the pond agreement with the county, we recovered some
of those losses through gaining fill and getting some money from the
county. But the bottom line is, Elias Brothers has already been
working with your transportation department to try to relieve access
issues in that area to the tune of spending $275,000.
I've already addressed those issues. Got to go backwards, okay,
thank you.
We are proposing -- essentially, we got a unanimous
recommendation of approval from the planning commission. We were
happy about that. What we didn't like was the phasing schedule. We're
not allowed to have any units until basically October 1, 2007.
We're totally consistent with your comprehensive plan as
proposed for the 524 units without phasing, but we recognize that we
need to work with the county and the community to address perceived
issues, even though technically we don't have any concurrency
management issues.
So we're proposing a similar phasing schedule to what Warm
Springs recently received, which would be half the units at this time,
the remaining half October 1st, 2007, or whenever the roads are
completed. If it's sooner, the roads are completed, great, if not, it
would be October 1, 2007, as proposed by the board.
Elias Brothers is a local builder. They have a workforce that they
\vant to keep employed. They're getting close to being done with
Tuscany Cove, which is a little bit further north on 951, and there will
be a gap between when that project is completed an~ when we would
be allowed to realistically bring units online.
To keep that workforce employed, we would like to get some of
Page 124
May 10, 2005
our units now so we don't have to lay them off, have them go
son1ewhere else, and try to immobilize. We don't want to have to
remobilize the company because of a phasing schedule on this project.
We are offering -- also offering, I think, something unique that
nobod,y"s come to the Board of County Commissioners and offered to
do at this time -- and keeping in mind, we're not asking for any density
bonuses for this project. The base density is four units per acre, and
that's what we're requesting.
We would like to offer up a concept of -- and if someone's got a
better name, please help me with the concept. Affordable housing's
been taken and workforce housing's been taken, and I'm inartfully
calling it gap housing.
And what that is intended to serve is people who are making
bet\veen 100 percent of median and 125 percent of median. And what
does that mean in dollars and cents? It's a family of four making
bet\veen 65,000 and $81,000 under today's, you knO\V, family of four
nledian income for Collier County.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Price of homes?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, that's interesting, Commissioner
Fiala, because there are so many different financing programs out
there now. Some banks are offering 40 percent financing so people
can qualify for bigger and better homes, more than I thought
originally.
I mean, we talked about with Warm Springs, the nIle of thumb is
three times your gross income is what you can fonvard. We're finding
that banks are willing to offer better incentives, lo\ver deposits down
and longer -- you know, 40-year mortgages versus 30-year mortgages.
So we didn't \vant to limit ourselves on a dollar threshold because
\ve didn't \vant to -- we didn't \vant to prevent sOll1ebody in that
income threshold from being able to maybe move up. Instead of
buying a 1,500 square foot house, maybe they can get an 1,800 square
foot house because of these financing progran1s.
Page 125
----
-"--'-
'--"..,
May 10, 2005
Now, naturally 1,800 square foot house would still -- it would
cost more, but we would be, obligated to make sure that they qualified
in the income ranges that we're talking about of65,000 to 81,000.
So if you used -- if you used the rule of thumb that's out there,
you're talking about between 150,000 and 250,000, when you're
talking about the three times your gross income rule of thumb. We
don't want to be limited to that because we think there are financing
programs out there that might enable people to qualify for, you know,
larger, more expensive houses, so -- but still fit the category of gap
housing. So that's one of the reasons we don't want to tie it to a certain
price point because of the different financing opportunities that are out
there now.
We believe that what we're offering is something unique to a
developer at this time. We're addressing a need that's not being
addressed by anyone at this point.
We're not asking for density bonuses to do that. We're offering
up -- we would like a phasing schedule similar to what Warm Springs
had, and we can get into greater detail if you need us to on the
transportation issues. And maybe Reed can come up real briefly __
where'd Reed go -- and talk about just some of the more global
transportation issues in the area and why our phasing plan will work
and not be a hinderance.
And with that, I'll turn it over to Reed.
MR. JARVI: Hi. For the record, my name's Reed Jarvi. I'm a
professional engineer, Vanasse, Daylor.
As you see on the visualizer that -- to the top part of this outline,
you see -- Palermo Cove in there, and on out to 951.
Part of the discussions have been, as Rich said, just to reiterate a
little bit. You have Wolfe Road going on the southern side of Palermo
Cove to 951, and that's part of their commitment. Th,ey've already
given right-of-way and are building part of the road, and then to the
south you have what's called Pristine Drive, which goes down through
Page 126
---,- '_..<.,~
May 10, 2005
the middle of Wolfe Creek PUD to Vanderbilt Beach Road.
Wolfe Creek is building part of that road up to their entrances,
and then Elias Brothers, as part of Palermo Cove, have to deal with
them to expedite the construction of Pristine to access -- to be their
first access point for Palermo Cove to Vanderbilt Beach Road.
What's important here is to note that as this has gone through the
process, the Mission Hills Shopping Center, which is the Sweet Bay,
opened a few weeks, month or so ago, and it's in the southeast comer
of this pro -- or this area at the northwest comer of Vanderbilt Beach
Road and Collier Boulevard, that's a shopping center that has grocery
-- you know, typical grocery and other type uses.
The Wolfe Creek and Carolina Villages are connecting to that off
of Pristine Road. You can see the dashed line, sort of, will be
accessing that. So that will help this whole area from a regional
net\vork standpoint, or mini regional network. They'll be able to get to
shopping areas without going on the major arterial system, either 951
or Vanderbilt Beach Road. So that will help greatly in the whole area,
both Wolfe Creek and Palermo Cove, reaching those shopping areas.
In addition, Tanglewood Village, which is in the process now, it's
not done, they're looking at some sort of commercial also and
connection off of Wolfe Road, so it help -- this little portion of Collier
County will have the multi uses available to both the residential and
the commercial components.
So I think that will be very important for this area to keep those
localized shopping trips off of the major network.
And I'll answer any questions if you have any at this time. Thank
vou.
eI
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Conlll1issioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand \vhat you're trying to
accon1plish here, but I think with Warm Springs, \ve got quite a bit of
cOl11l11itments fron1 the developer there in regards to widening the
roads and opening up new corridors.
Page 127
'-._~,~.-
May 10,2005
I am grateful that you're coming forward with some affordable
housing. I'm not sure how i,t fits in the picture because we're talking
$64,000 to $81,000 per family of four. I would think that we would
like to address workforce housing, because I don't think there's that
many people that are making $81,000 per household, and I think we
need to look at something __
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My household is.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- lower, but __
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My household is.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My household is.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, that's interesting. If you only
make $70,000 a year as a county commissioner and I don't think your
wife works. I know I don't -- I know I make $67,000 or whatever it is,
and I'm not sure about taking $81,000.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I only make 35. Why are you getting
more than lTIe?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Tells you how much you're worth,
right?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Bigger history.
Anyway, get to the bottom line here is that I'm surprised. I think
that the planning commission, when they addressed this issue, I think
they were basically saying that you could build all the houses you
wanted, and -- but you couldn't get any CO's for them until sometime
in 2007 after the 951 is open.
And I believe that's -- so we're not here to stymie you not to build
the homes. It's just that you can't get your final CO's until -- at such
time as the road is completed.
But I would think even then that you're going to have to take
some -- there's going to be some time involved here ~n working with
the site and putting in all the other infrastructure, so I'm sure that that's
going to take up a lot of your time or the time of the developer.
Page 128
May 10, 2005
So, therefore, I really can't see what you're gaining on this.
MR YOV ANOVICH: Well, Commissioner, let Ine tell you.
First of all, we are doing -- we are paying for improvements to your
system. We will be paying for the construction of Wolfe Road and a
portion of Pristine Drive. That's going to create another loop, a bigger
loop road, as Mr. Kant used to tell us, that's also part of your
transportation network. That's on our dime that we're paying for
similar to what Warm Springs did. So we are constructing
Ünprovements to the transportation network in return for that.
We have also made a sizable donation to Barbara Cacchione, and
this was a while back, on our own, that we talked to her about
addressing affordable housing. We are contributing $250,000 to a
project she's doing in Immokalee to get rid of substandard housing and
replace it with decent housing for people in the affordable price range.
Also, the whole Pristine Road discussion wasn't addressed at the
planning commission. The planning commission -- as I understood it,
NIL Strain's primary concern was getting traffic onto 951. He didn't
like the idea of Wolfe Road connecting to 951.
We've worked it out with the developer of Wolfe Creek that
we're going to expedite Pristine to bring the traffic down to
Vanderbilt. And as you'll see, that's a fairly substantial difference
from the intersection of 951 and Vanderbilt.
So these are all ideas that have come up since the planning
con1mission. The gap housing -- the gap housing is just not being
addressed by anybody --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- in the county. And workforce housing
is 100 percent or less of the median income. We have a process for
doing that, but nobody has come in and said, we're \villing to make
sure that we make available -- and the number's 10 percent. Those
units are going to be made available and sold only to people who
qualify between a hundred and 25 (sic) percent of the median income.
Page 129
May 10, 2005
and it doesn't take much for a family, two wage-earner family, of four
to get above $65,000. ,
It doesn't take much to there, and there's no programs to address
that issues. And we're trying to offer up something different in
exchange for being able to build some units now.
Now, to answer your site planning question. We anticipate
delivering completed units in September '06. So we would have to sit
-- we'd have to build them to keep the machine going, because we
don't want to lose our employees. We'd have to build them, make sure
the air-conditioning is running, we'd have to finance them, and we
don't get any return on our money. That doesn't really makes any
sense. That's a lot -- it's 31 months from now. It's a longer period of
time than people really considered, I think, when we talked about this
phasing schedule.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But we're also not only addressing
951 expansion, but we're in the process right now of tearing up
Vanderbilt Beach Road all the way back to Airport, and we're in the
process of getting that up to speed because we realize that we're
deficient there on roads.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. But if you look at your
concurrency management system, under the concurrency management
system, in place today that was recently adopted, we do not have a
concurrency issue, and you can verify that with your staff.
Now, that's not stopping people from saying, we have a
perception of a traffic issue. And we know we're going to put vehicles
on that road. We know we're putting vehicles on the road, and we
want to address that through a phasing schedule that keeps a local
builder functioning in the community, and also addresses a need, the
gap housing, that nobody's addressing, without asking for any density
bonuses.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When is it anticipated that
Page 130
May 10, 2005
Pristine will be complete?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It obviously needs to be complete and
open before we have any -- September '06 is what we're thinking,
Pristine will be done by then.
CCHV[fv1ISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I don't see what the
heartburn is. I know Commissioner Strain's heartburn is on Collier
Boulevard and that -- that six-lane section in there. I understand that
that's where he's coming from. Even though the request fit the
concurrency management plan that this board adopted, I understand
tha t.
What you're -- what you're asking is, will you have the relief?
The relief is Pristine Drive. And why even phase it, in my opinion, if
Pristine is open? That's a reliever.
The intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and 951 will be done
at that time also. We've got the first phase going on right now and the
second phase -- well, the second phase is being worked on at this titne.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And Commissioner, we offered that up
because it will work with our pro forma and what we're going to be
delivering as far as units go. That's why we offered the phasing. It's
beneficial to the community and realistic.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine. I just -- for the
public to build -- for the private sector to build public roads is getting
LlS out of the hole that we're in and providing interconnectivity. And I
just don't see what the -- what the further heartburn is when you're
clearly demonstrating that you're part of the solution. You're not part
of the problem.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So when the chairman closes the
public hearing, I'm ready to make a motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I just want to support
C ol11l11issionerHenning. It's his district. He's brought up an issue that
Page 13 I
May 10, 2005
we've been ignoring, that's the gap housing that Commissioner Fiala's
brought up a number of tim.es. I think this has got all the necessary
elements to be -- make it a going project. It's got a public good to it
that we're always looking for today. And I'll be happy to second your
motion when that time does come.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Before I make any comments,
I need to ask our county attorney for some legal advice. My daughter
works for Elias Brothers. And, I mean, she works as a design
manager, which means she picks out stuff that goes into the house
once they're built. But I don't want to do anything if it's -- you know,
if it's not, you know, a hundred percent okay. So I need your advice,
please.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner, and I
appreciate you raising the issue during the course of discussion here.
Under the law, of course, it's appropriate for a person that has a
conflict or a potential conflict to raise it and have -- make a
detennination of how to participate before the vote is taken, so you're
perfectly timely that way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good.
MR. WEIGEL: I would suggest to you and counsel you that
based upon the fact that there is a familiar relationship with the
petitioner, that in and of itself alone may not indicate an absolute
conflict but that additionally we've heard statements made, even in the
course of the meeting today, relating to employees or the loss of
employees if the project didn't go forward.
So I would suggest that based upon Florida Statute 286.012, that
you could avail yourself, make the choice to abstain based upon a
potential or perception of conflict, and then you would abstain from
the vote and you \vould then have 15 days subsequent to today's vote
to file the appropriate fonn required by statute.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And you'd show me how to
Page 132
May 10, 2005
file this form and so forth?
MR. WEIGEL: That's right. Ms. Filson will.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I clarify something __
CX)~ll[MISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- before you decide what you want to
do?
I was referring to construction-related employees. I was not
talking to -- or talking about the category that your daughter fits into.
So, you know, you have no impact on her one way or the other.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I didn't even know what job
she had. I had to call her today. That's what I was running out of the
office for. That's how much we talk about this stuff.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That will help clarify to you that, you
know, you're not affecting her pocketbook one way or the other.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, in any event, you may, as I say, take
advantage of the statute. Statutorily everyone is, of course, required to
vote in the normal course of things, but there is another statute that
comes under the sunshine law statutes as opposed to the conflicts of
law statutes that -- which does indicate that if there's a perception of
potential for conflict, that you may make that determination to abstain,
and I would recommend that you abstain.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, okay. Can I comment on
things though?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, you may.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean, like, for instance, he \vas
talking about gap housing, and I wanted to just say that __
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the answer is yes, you can comment to the
extent YOU wish.
..
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That is a part of the housing that has
not been addressed, and we need it desperately. Nobody's talking
about building it. 1'111 delighted that they are. I think it's much
Page 133
~--~_.~
May 10, 2005
needed, and I fully support that. Thank you for letting me comment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE,: Okay. I -- before Commissioner
Henning makes his motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not ready to make a motion,
but go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'd like to ask a question.
In my opinion this is an interesting proposal. It lacks a lot of
specifics. You haven't told us what the price range of the house is
going to be. You've talked about the potential for certain financing
packages to permit these people to purchase it at three times their
household income.
I would -- I would sort of like to hear some specific commitments
with respect to how many units you're going to build, 10 percent, and
what price ranges they're going to be in and how long they're going to
be held at that price range, what kinds of guarantees are you going to
have --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- that these will stay in that price range,
or will they be sold and then that's the end of it? Is there going to be
some kind of requirement that these things not be resold at a higher
price for a specific period of time? What is the holding period for
those houses? So there's a lot of specifics here.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And let me address those issues for you,
if I can, Commissioner.
First of all, we're going to limit it to people who are first-time
home buyers, and as Collier County defines, that as somebody who
hasn't bought a house in two years. It's going to be -- it has to be their
sole residence, so they can't own anything else.
Weare talking about requiring that they stay in the house a
minimum of two years. The reality is, if everybody ,-- in Collier
County, I've been -- you know, I bought in at the right prices in a
certain neighborhood. If I wanted to sell and move back into my
Page 134
May 10, 2005
neighborhood, I can't get back into my neighborhood.
We would anticipate that people who are buying these units and
are working in Collier County are going to find themselves in the
same place, that even if they wanted to sell and try to make a quick
buck, they're not going to be able to find a place to reinvest.
We wanted to have the flexibility of some hardship provisions for
people. Things come up. You know, a death in the family, someone
loses a job, you get a divorce. We wanted to have a hardship
provision that would allow people to sell sooner, but we would want a
commitment of at least two years, that had to be their sole residence so
no speculator could buy these units. It's 10 percent, so 524 times .10
is 52.4 units, so 52 units. And we're the first one to try it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Fifty-three.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sure I can go to 53. I'll round up even
though -- but --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When you say a minimum of two years,
what does that really mean?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we're going to say two, but if
you've got a -- we're the first ones to try this, so I don't know,
Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You stay in it two years, does that mean
you can then leave it and sell it at the market rate?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, you could.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So then it's no longer in the gap housing?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. But the reality is, is that's
probably not going to happen because people who are working and
bought the house will have no place to go because there's not going to
be a replacement home for them to buy, so they're going to have to
kind of stay where they are.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Unless they go to Hendry County or Lee
County or any other --
NIR. YOV ANOVICH: And Commissioner, \vhat we're trying to
Page 135
....
.~._--,_.-
~-.._-'"----
May 10, 2005
do, as I understand it, is we're trying to provide housing for people
who really can't forward it t~day, to give them the American dream of
owning their own home, and if they get transferred or they move on
and we enabled them to make, you know, a nice investment, that's not
a bad thing, to help people start out by doing that.
If, we can -- we could talk about maybe extending that period a
little bit longer, but, you know, we're not sure. You know, we're the
first ones to try it, so I'm hesitant to put in too long a period of time
not really knowing what, you know, people will accept.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Who was next, Commissioner
Halas or Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I think Commissioner Coletta
-- or Henning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning was next.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Weigel, I guess the concern
-- this takes a supermaj ority, right, for this PUD?
MR. WEIGEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I've already heard
concerns from -- to my right and knocking out somebody because the
perception, or your recommendations, because an employee does
some work there, but, in fact, it was stated on the record that this part
of the employment of this company won't be affected if we go to the
planning commission's recommendations.
So -- and it probably won't affect her employment if it's turned
down, this part of the sector of it. So your recommendations, I think,
are very limited to one of the commissioners of making a choice,
although you did tell her that it is a perception, and perception is in __
with the person who votes on that.
MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. Apparently there's a question
there. And the thing is, as I've talked about so many times with the
senlinars that I give on sunshine law and conflicts in ethics is that the
perception is one thing. And for someone to file a claim and have to
Page 136
May 10, 2005
defend is another thing.
We can, most often, in fact, in every case, defend successfully
the claims, but you hate to have those claims and go through that in
the first place.
Þ~nd I've had an opportunity to speak with Ms. Fiala outside of
the meeting directly as well. So my counsel was just based upon an
overall thought and concern, although ultimately the question is hers.
And the statutory reference I'm referring to is one of not -- not
one of absolute conflict, but one of where there may be potential or
perception of conflict. So it is an election of her part. I just offered
my thought and counsel in that regard.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I do have one question for
Mr. Y ovanovich. There is an agreement with the fire department
about some signage?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir, and I --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you \vant to enter that into
the stipulations?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Y es. We -- you know, I didn't get into all
that because I thought transportation was really the issue. But we
have coordinated with the fire departn1ent to assist them in access to
Wolfe, Wolfe Road, as well as providing them signage on our
property so that people can identify the fire station, which obviously is
a place -- you know, it's a safe place.
You know, that's where people go. If they need help, you know,
they need get to the fire station -- it's one of the -- they can get to the
fìre station and get help. And we're working with the fire station. We
have worked with your transportation department. We're talking
about working on Wolfe Road and Pristine.
MR. NADEAU: For the record, D\vight Nadeau, planning
n1anager for R W A representing the petitioner.
i\ little bit of enlightenn1ent is that we brought up a deviation at
the planning commission that \vas embraced by the planning
Page 137
May 10, 2005
commission because the non-residential land uses are prohibited from
having off-site signage. .
When the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue Station PUD was
approved last year, this body assured the fire district that they were
going to have signage, whether it was permitted by code or not. So
that we wouldn't have to break the rules, I provided for the deviations
in the code, deviations in the PUD, to allow for that signage.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have one question for you, and
that is in regards to, how are you going to stipulate that it is working
families and not retirees that are going to be able to purchase this __
these units?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I mean, we thought we needed to
answer the gap housing issue. I'm assuming that, I guess, a retiree,
who -- a family of two or one, their median income goes much lower,
and then, you know, probably would not be able to afford a unit with
the lower income. If you want us to stipulate that it has to be a family,
we'll do that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think that retirees, they
could exceed that commitment and just come in and buy two or three
units just for speculation.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, again, we said it had to be their
sole residence. That was one of the conditions, that it had be their sole
residence. They could not own someplace else. So, you know -- and I
knO\V some retirees, you know, their income level is kind of small,
theoretically, but they live rather extravagantly and have more than
one home, so --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'm talking--
MR. yaV ANOVICH: -- we're trying to safeguard that. And if
you've got a suggestion, Commissioner, that makes ~his mousetrap a
better mousetrap, we'll be happy to incorporate that to make sure that
son1eone's not cheating the system.
Page 138
May 10, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I was just bringing this up --
MR. YO V ANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- just to try to figure out in my
mind how we can make sure that we're addressing the real needs and
not :1ddrc~ssing the needs of retirees that want to come down here __
MR. YO V ANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- and purchase this as their
single-family -- as their own home, and yet we're cutting out the
people that we really need, like schoolteachers, sheriff deputies, and
so on.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And, Commissioner, we'll -- to the
maximum extent we legally can, we'll limit that, and also, you knO\V,
our intent was, frankly, to, as soon as we're ready to go, is notify the
school board in Collier County of -- the project's ready to go. If
you've got people \vho are interested, please come see us, because,
you know, we anticipate that the school system, the fire departnlents,
the sheriffs office, some of your employees, need this housing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what you're saying, that
basically the price of this home is going to be somewhere around
$250,000?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, it could be that high, it could be
lower. It's going to depend. Remember, it's all based upon the ability
to -- you can't spend more than 30 percent of your gross income per
nl0nth on the house, the insurance, and on the taxes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what the -- \vhat criteria are you
going to base this on? What's the price of the house going to be?
What's the minimunl price and what's the maximum price going to be
based on the criteria? Do have you that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's right there for you, Con1ffiissioner.
",;:\nd that's under certain scenarios. That's assulning certain mortgage
rates and assuming a 30 percent financing -- 30-year financing.
Now, it could change. yT ou know, interest rates go up, obviously
Page 139
May 10,2005
the price of the house goes down. The period -- if you can extend
your financing out, you co~ld qualify for a nicer house and still be in
that income threshold that's being served by this gap housing.
And Commissioner just, as far as the phasing goes and really
what we need, we're talking about, starting September 1, we
anticipated bringing online -- September 1, '06, bringing online
roughly 20 houses a month. So by the time we get to October 1, '07,
that's, you know, 240, which we would do less because we asked for
half -- no, it would be right, about 240; 262 would be half. It's getting
late. The math's harder.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. One of the things that I've
been learning as I've been investigating all of this housing -- these
housing issues is, you're absolutely right, that that portion of our -_
that segment of our community is just not served at all. It's exactly
what Commissioner Halas was saying, the teachers and firefighters
and deputies, and -- that you usually there are two working people in a
fan1ily, and you get the two of them together and you usually have,
you know, a wage that can support this housing. I would love to see it
a little bit lower, you know, to allow more people to qualify.
But one of the things that I've learned is, here, unlike other areas
around the whole country, people aren't selling their homes and
moving regularly. I think the national average is every four years they
sell; whereas, down here in Collier County, the reason they're hanging
onto the house, number one, they're land value's just rise exponentially
and very quickly, and, secondly, once they're in, they don't -- you
know, why would they buy another house, pay another impact fee.
But more importantly, their taxes are now frozen, if you will, by
Save our Homes, and they only rise three percent. And I think most of
us here have lived in our house well over the nation,:!l average just
because, you know, it's very comfortable to stay in that price range,
and you want to say there and you're real happy about your taxeso
Page 140
May 10, 2005
where they are, and you don't find as much moving going on here in
Collier County as you do around the rest of the country. It was very
interesting to learn.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Those are excellent points that I had not
thought of.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, would you like
to go ahead make your motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion to approve, and I
want to encompass all the planning commission's recommendations
except for the phasing, to add our own phasing, phasing the proj ect,
half the project can be built after Pristine is built, no CO's will be
allowed, provide 10 percent, or no less than -- 53, Commissioner
Coyle?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, 53.
MR. MUDD: Fifty-three.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Fifty-three of gap housing for
the workforce of Collier County. Well, the gap is, what it explained,
will cover that. The only thing that I don't cover in the planning
commission's recommendations is the signage for the fire department,
oft-site signage.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think it's on one of the deviations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So including that into it
also, it is --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's deviation number five,
Con1ll1issioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And that the gap housing
\vill be for the sole residence and not a second home, be for first-time
home buyers with the minimum of those buyers holding on to that
product for a minimum of three years.
NIR. YOV ANOVICH: Three years.
Page 141
~._-_.__...".
May 10, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's my motion, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second for it for discussion
purposes. I'm not too sure how we could make that happen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Coletta.
MR. MUDD: May I ask a question? I got one half of the
housing coming online after Pristine is on. When's the other coming
online? That's the only question I have. October 1, 2007.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That was our understanding.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: October 2007, was it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Were the gap housing units
supposedly being built in equal percentages of both of those portions?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. That's part of my motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And my second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Very well. Then we have a
motion and second for approval with those conditions.
Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I just want to make sure
that everything that we stated there is doable, the three-year business
and the -- is it, Mr. Y ovanovich?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. We can agree to all those
sti pula ti ons.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then let me summarize them to
make sure there's no misunderstanding. There's a motion to
recommend approval with one half of the homes bei~g able to be built
after Pristine is completed and the other half will be to be completed.
MR. MUDD: One October.
Page 142
May 10, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: One October, 2007.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh seven, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioners, there was some
discussion of somewheres around 20 homes a month. Is that what
we're going to put in the motion also or not?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That wasn't in the motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, maybe the motion maker
ought to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We've got to demand that they
build 20 houses a month?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No more than 20 a month, I think is --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, no more than 20 a month.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, no more than.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That can be CO'ed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No more than -- yeah, sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. My second includes it,
too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No more than 20 hon1es per month.
Okay. Let me start over then. Half of them will be guilt built after
Pristine is completed --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: CO.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Half of them will be CO'd after
Pristine is completed with, and you will build no more than 20 homes
per month during the entire duration, and the remainder of the homes
\vill be completed by October 2 -- or CO'd by October 2007, 10
percent but no less than 53 will be the gap houses in accordance with
the definition that it be first-time home buyers, be the sole home, and
n1ust stay a minimum of three years, and it includes the signage
deviation for number five.
IvIR. YOV ANOVICH: And I'm assuming you meant the 20 per
n10nth \vas just until October 1, '07. That's what the -- okay. And then
the balance we can go at any pace?
Page 143
---".-
May 10,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what I understand.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have that motion.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Those opposed, by like sign.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I must abstain.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you're abstaining. So we have three
votes for, one vote against, and one abstaining, and it requires four
votes.
I was the vote against, Commissioner Fiala abstained, and the
other commissioners voted in favor.
I voted against primarily because -- I like your idea of the gap
homes. I don't think it's been clearly thought out. I don't think that the
safeguards are there to guarantee us a good supply of gap homes after
the two or even the three years.
We're -- Habitat for Humanity specifies 15 or so, and I think we
specify up to 20 years before someone gets the full value of any
increased equity from a home after reselling. So I am concerned about
that process, and I'm also concerned about the additional burden on
the roads.
But Commissioner Coletta, you have a comment?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. And I'm concerned with
the fact that we've got something that sounds very positive, and we're
going to lose out on it.
What I'm going to suggest is that possibly we might be able to
reconsider that vote and then ask for this to be brought back, and
111aybe your concerns could be addressed in the meantime?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I mean, you can bring an
Page 144
May 10, 2005
alternative motion. Commissioner Coyle, if we were to go to five
years, keeping in mind we're the first ones to try this, does -- that's a
fairly long period of time for people to commit to stay in that house.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you see they're not committing to
stay in that house. All they're committing to doing is saying that they
do not realize the full appreciation potential of that house if they leave
in less than five years.
What we're looking for is some guarantee that having granted
permission to proceed on the development of 523 homes, or 24 homes,
that -- in your commitment that you're going to provide gap housing is
that we don't have gap housing for just two or three years then it
disappears, we have gap housing for a little longer than that because
the problem isn't going to disappear in two or three years.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I'm suggesting that maybe five years
is a term we could start this on and see. Because I think the reality is,
people are going to stay in that house much longer than that before
they actually realize the appreciation.
I mean, I've been in my house seven years. I'm not going
anywhere because I cannot afford to go anywhere. Even if I took the
profit out, I can't -- I can't go anywhere and replace what I already
have.
So I think that's what's going to happen with most of the people
who buy these units, other than a hardship. I mean, you know, we
\vant to give people the ability if there's a hardship to, if they can't
afford the payment, to be able to get out and leave.
But I think a five-year period is a significant, significant
cOll11nitment with the reality of, as Commissioner Fiala pointed out, is
people aren't leaving their houses.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, actually according to the data that
our housing people provide us, they are, in fact, turning over every
four and a half or five years.
IvIR. YOV ANOVICH: In that price point, or is it in a higher
Page 145
May 10,2005
price point?
CHAIRMAN COYLE,: Well, it's a lower price point, as a matter
of fact. It's in the real affordable housing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think you need to test that data
before you take it to the bank.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And Commissioner, I'm hoping, you
know, what we're proposing -- and you know, maybe a continuance is
the right thing to do -- is that, you know, we're trying to do something
unique. Nobody seems to have a problem with 524 units.
We're asking to be able to build roughly 240 of them prior to
October 1st, and in return for that, we're going to put -- we're going to
try a new program of 53 units, and -- otherwise, you know, I guess if
you went with the planning commission's recommendation, we get
524 unrestricted units and, you know, we'd wait a year, which is not
what we want to do. If we need to flesh out more detail, we'd like to
have the opportunity to come back and do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Commissioner Henning, he
might have a solution, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. You know, I was fearful
after our workforce housing that we really wasn't serious to provide
certain proj ects for the workforce, or affordable housing workshop or
whatever it was.
I thought all my colleagues were serious, but I'm really
concerned that we're just digging a further hole in this issue of
providing for the people who work in Collier County.
Therefore, I'm going to make a motion to continue and give
direction to the petitioner to work with our affordable/workforce
housing director to come up with some kind of language that the
Board of Commissioners will consider, and we want to bring it up,
why don't we make it tough on the Board of Commi~sioners, last
l11eeting in June.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.g
Page 146
Mav 10. 2005
-' '
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Henning for continuance, second by Commissioner
Coletta.
Any further discussion?
U',Jo response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas is in
opposition.
And Commissioner Fiala, you could vote on this one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I vote on this one?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's a continuance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep, she can vote it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hey, she can vote on it
anyways. She could have voted on the original thing.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, that is correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But it was just a --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Are you going to --
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, she can vote on the continuance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you going to abstain or are you
going to vote?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, if -- I would want to vote to
say continued, but I don't know --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes.
MR. WEIGEL: It passes regardless.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala has abstained, and
the vote passed on a vote of 3-1, with Commissioner Halas dissenting.
Page 147
'-'
May 10, 2005
MS. FILSON: She still has to fill out the abstention.
COMMISSIONER HA-LAS: The only reason I dissented is
because I think our workload is going to be pretty heavy in the last of
June.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep.
Okay. County Manager, where does that take us?
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2005-182: RE-APPOINTING LOWELL LAM TO
THE UTILITY AUTHORITY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Well, Commissioner, let's go to 9A, and that's
appointment of a member to the Utility Authority.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion to approve the
recommendation of Lam Lowell.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Lowell Lam.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Lowell Lam.
MS. FILSON: Yeah, that's a reappointment.
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: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
Page 148
Mav 10. 2005
-' '
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
HelTI #9B
RES'OLtTTION 2005-183: APPOINTING GERALD W.
CAMIENER, ANTHONY P. PIRES JR., JOHN SOREY AND
RONALD 1. MINARCINI TO THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL
ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 9B. It's
appointment of members to the Collier County Coastal Advisory
Committee.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion we approve
Gerald W. Camiener and Anthony P. Pires, Jr.
MS. FILSON: And we also need to confirm the appointment for
the City of Naples and Marco Island, Councilman Sorey and--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Four people total.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And Thomas W --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. Commissioner, down below where
it says confirmation of members.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, okay, I got you. Yeah,
Councilman John F. Sorey, representing the City of Naples, and
Ronald 1. Minarcini --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Minarcini.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, of the City of Marco.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion to approve the
committee recommendations and confirmation of the members of the
City of Naples and City of Marco Island from Con1l11issioner Halas,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any discussion, Comn1issioner
Page 149
'-'
May 10, 2005
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In the ordinance it states that the
representation -- and I don't think it means from the city municipality
recommendations, that the applicant must have knowledge,
experience, on beach renourishment. Is it the board's understanding
that this is a requirement or just a desire?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Desire.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's my understanding that the cities
appoint whoever they want to be there and they make the decision.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And I'm not -- I'm
excluding the cities from that requirement, but overall, the other
recommendations was --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You mean the other two?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Well, I, quite frankly, would
prefer to see somebody with more experience, but Tom Sansbury has
some expenence.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, and Tony Pires has been
servIng.
MS. FILSON: But we also have to appoint the three members
from unincorporated Collier County, and he resides in the city limits.
He should have applied with the City of Naples, and I called him.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I understand. Okay. Then forget that.
Okay.
Is there any other discussion on this item then?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then I'm going to call the question.
For -- the motion is for approval of Gerald Camiener, Anthony
Pires, and Councilman John Sorey and Ronald J. Minarcini.
All in favor, please signify saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 150
May 10, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Clli\.IRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning is dissenting.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2005-184: APPOINTING FREDERICK 1. REISCHL
TO THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
- ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: That brings us to the next item, which is 9C. It's
appointment of member to the Development Services Advisory
Committee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to recon11TIend or vote
for the committee's recommendation of Frederick Reisch!.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve Frederick
Reischl by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
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.
Page 151
May 10,2005
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2005-185; RE-APPOINTING JOHN R.
HUMPHREY, JOHN 1. AGNELLI AND ROSS P. OBLEY TO THE
EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES AUTHORITY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next item is 9D. It's appointment of members
of the Educational Facilities Authority.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a recommendation, or
motion to accept the committee recommendations?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll make that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas makes a
motion --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- to accept committee
recommendations, a second by Commissioner Coletta.
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 passes unanimously.
Item #9E
Page 152
May 10, 2005
RESOLUTION 2005-186: RE-APPOINTING N. REX ASHLEY
AND GEORGE C. MOHLKE, JR. AND APPOINTING MARIA
CECELIA FERRAO TO THE HEALTH FACILITIES AUTHORITY
- ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Next item is 9E. It's appointment of members to
the Health Facilities Authority.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion to accept committee
recommendations?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve commission --
committee recommendations.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Fiala, second
by Commissioner Coletta to accept committee recommendation for N.
Rex Ashley, George Mohlke, and Maria Cecilia Ferrao.
All in favor, please -- is there any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye, okay. Commissioner Halas
dissenting. Passes 4-1.
Item #9F
RESOLUTION 2005-187: RE-APPOINTING JOHN AGNELLI
Page 153
May 10,2005
AND ROSS P. OBLEY TO THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Next item is 9F. It's appointment of members to
the Industrial Development Authority.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion to accept committee
recommendations?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So move.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to
accept appointment of John Agnelli and Ross P. Obley.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And a second by Commissioner Halas.
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: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #9G
RESOLUTION 2005-188: APPOINTING RON ALBEIT TO THE
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Next item is 9G. It's appointment of member to
the Tourist Development Council.
Page 154
May 10, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we appoint
Ronald Abar (sic) to that -- .
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Albeit.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Albeit, to that position.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I'll second that.
Is there any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion by Commissioner
Halas, second by Commissioner Coyle, to appoint Ron Albeit to the
Tourist Development Council.
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 passes unanimously.
Item #9H
CONTRACT SHERIFFS' SERVICES FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL
ON BLUEBILL AND GULFSHORE DRIVE DURING HIGH USE
TIMES - MOTION TO GIVE FUNDING TO ASSIST THE
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT DURING HOLIDAYS W/CAP OF
$65,000 PER YEAR-TO BRING IN OFF-DUTY OFFICERS TO
HELP IN TRAFFIC CONTROL -WITHDRAWN; SECOND
MOTION - STAFF TO PROVIDE CONTRACT W/ALL
STIPULATIONS - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: The next item is an ad-on item that I mentioned
Page 155
May 10, 2005
before during agenda changes, and this is 9H, and that's a -- contract
sheriff service for traffic control on Bluebill and Gulfshore Drive
during high-use times, and this item was asked for by Commissioner
Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I brought this forth because
we're incurring huge traffic issues entering into the state park of
Wiggins State Park. We've had a number of meetings with people in
the community basically at parks and rec. service, the sheriffs
department, also people from the state park, and also people from the
State of Florida, indicating that we needed to find a solution to the
problem.
And upon having this meeting, we found that the state at this
point in time is very reluctant to help us with resources, even though
they are part of the community. So what's happened is that we have
severe traffic back-ups on weekends, and this is getting to the point
where it's interfering with traffic all the way from the park entrance on
Bluebill, backing all the way up to U.S. 41.
And the Catholic church has a number of masses on Sundays and
Saturdays, and they're incurring a serious problem whereby they also
contract the sheriff deputy to assist in getting people out of the -- out
of the mass, out of the services, and, of course, it ends up to where it
becomes a gridlock.
And at this time I'd like to turn it over to Lieutenant Welch, who
is the new commander of the post at North Naples.
And the other situation that we're running into is where people
are coming down Vanderbilt Beach Road and are parking anyplace
they can find a parking spot, and, of course, the sheriffs department is
then involved along with towing services.
So at that, I'll turn it over to Lieutenant Welch, and I think he
give an insight of what we're up against here. .
MR. WELCH: Good afternoon. Commissioner Halas asked me
to come here this afternoon and talk about the Wiggins Pass traffic
Page 156
May 10, 2005
issues. I know you guys have heard these several times before. I've
only been there for two mot?-ths. The two months that I've been there,
this is probably my number one citizen complaint and/or meeting
issue that I've had to deal with.
I've gone down there myself and directed traffic. It's a hazard on
several things. Number one, if there's an emergency down there on
the weekends or holidays when the beach access are all tied up,
emergency vehicles cannot get down there unless they cross a double
yellow line and run the wrong way on the opposite side of the traffic
going over that bridge.
Traffic itself shuts down throughout that entire corridor to where
it will not move unless there's somebody physically sitting at that
intersection telling these people they have to move. Their thoughts
are, is the park opens up, they'll let a couple cars in, I might as well sit
here at the stop sign. And once it starts, it doesn't end.
On top of that, they start getting a little impatient with parking
issues and they start parking wherever they please, especially down at
the Vanderbilt Beach turn around where there's a little bit more open
fields, you have the Da-Ruma parking lot and several business parking
lots in that area.
We end up, as a sheriffs office, having to respond down there
every weekend, every beach holiday, to handle stolen vehicle
complaints, and these vehicles haven't been stolen. They've been
towed. All of those business have contracted with tow companies to
tow these vehicles from their private property, so then we're dealing
with the opposite end of that problem, which is, we have irate citizens
who want their cars back, and then they're even more shell shocked
when they get the bill of $150 plus for having their cars towed.
It ends up going to both ends, depending on the turn-around
traffic and the parking spots available to county resi~ents. More so at
the Bluebill side because there are more spaces actually in the state
park and more people tend to go down there.O
Page 157
May 10, 2005
I have been paying overtime for the holidays here recently since
I've been in North Naples v~a regular sheriffs office overtime, which
is more money than a contract overtime.
Obviously, having dealt with the sheriffs budget with the
commissioners, you guys know the impact that that has on our
overtime dollars. And I can't afford to do that every weekend and
every major beach holiday, plus spring break.
So in meetings with Commissioner Halas, we agreed that this
was probably the best option that we have currently at this time
because the state parks, their opinion is that they end at their gates.
Everything beyond their gates is county responsibility.
We have tried everything with the county transportation people
as far as putting signs, flashing warnings saying the park is full,
barricades. But the bottom line is, unless there's somebody physically
at that intersection making people go, they're not going to move. And
we can't be down there all the time.
I'm sure you've read the Letters to the Editor. I always have
more important things to do like solve murders than direct traffic
down there, according to the Letters to the Editor, and it gets
sometimes old, because I'm doing everything I can for these people,
but unfortunately I cannot have my staff down there all the time
depending on call load, unless I have somebody through contract who
is physically tied to that intersection based upon the contract.
And with that, I'll turn it back over to Commissioner Halas,
unless you have any questions of me.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is there any other questions from
my fellow commissioners?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, Commissioner Henning has a
question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't yo~ enforce the law?
MR. WELCH: We can force the law. The problem is, is once it
starts, our main issue is, once we get down there, the first person
Page 158
Mav 10. 2005
'"
blocking that intersection is the one that you cite, because the other
people can't pass. It's a double yellow line.
So when you -- if you cite all of them, 800 cars deep all the U.S.
41, you're doing nothing. All we're doing is running down there to cite
the first person in line, then we've got to sit down there and try and get
these cars out. And once we leave, we're going to be right back over
there doing the same thing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you think they'll do it
again after you cite them?
MR. WELCH: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, you think they will, after a
citation?
MR. WELCH: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: After having to pay a fine?
MR. WELCH: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's interesting.
MR. WELCH: They circle like Indians. If we're down there,
they will circle the wagons all day long until we leave, and then they
\vill physically sit there for that park to open.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think, what, $139 million, and
\ve have to contract with the sheriffs department to enforce the laws?
MR. WELCH: We have no problem enforcing the law, sir.
That's not the issue. We go down there and enforce, the law. The
issue is, the citizens down there are not getting any relief from that.
Y ou've got a safety hazard, and we can't physically sit there 24 -- not
24 hours, eight hours a day every weekend, every major holiday and
just hand out a ticket here and there. We can't physically sit in one
spot all of the time.
COrvlMISSIONER HALAS: And then --
COl\1MISSIONER HENNING: How much \vould the citation
., .,
be:
ìvlR. WELCH: Moving infraction, 115.50.
Page 159
May 10,2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: As part of the sheriffs budget,
maybe we can use that item in the budget.
MR. WELCH: Citation money is not given to the county, or
given to the sheriff for other issues besides training. I believe there's a
small training fee that's given through State of Florida for citations
that are written.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: At our beach access workshop, we
directed the parks and recreations department to start working on -- or
somebody to start working on that problem. We specifically directed
them to try to find some off-site parking and investigate some
directional signs that would get people to off-site parking and then
have shuttles to take them to the beach.
Where are we on that project?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, what I --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Here comes Marla. She's going to try to
answer that question for us.
MS. RAMSEY: Commissioner, the goal was to come back to
your June 7th meeting and give you as much detail as we possibility
can on that.
But just to give a little update, we are working right now to do a
shuttle drop-off Memorial Sunday and Monday at Vanderbilt with
three shuttle buses coming from Fifth-Third parking garage and
Naples Park Elementary school. I'm doing like a horseshoe or a
circular around that just to see how much that will enhance the issue at
that location. And we're looking at two drop-off locations right now,
one to two that we can utilize along Vanderbilt.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And when do you expect that to be done
first? Is it on Memorial Day weekend?
MS. RAMSEY: Memorial Sunday and Monday are the two days
that we're looking to do that, and then we will be ba<.?k before you on
June 7th, and we'll share with you how that all went.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Page 160
May 10, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But let me tell you what will
happen here, you try to have a shuttle service, there's a lot of people
that are there to take their cars into the state park, and you're going to
end up to where those people in that shuttle bus are going to be
invol red in the same traffic jam if we don't figure out a way of
moving that traffic.
Now, as the sheriff talked about, the deputy here, the lieutenant,
they go down there and they tell those people, they got to move.
And we thought about even putting -- maybe somebody
contracting a security guard, but the problem is, the sheriff has also
informed me that these people become belligerent and they don't have
any real respect even for his own officers because of the fact, they'll
say, get moving, and they'll give them a hard time to the point where
these people then can give them a violation notice and then, of course,
they get their attention at that point in time.
What happens, when they move the traffic avvay from Wiggins
State Park, because they're backed up over the bridge past Vanderbilt
Drive, when they go down there and start to get that traffic jam
unfurled, then what takes place is at the other end of Gulfshore Drive,
it starts backing up on Gulfshore Drive and onto Vanderbilt Beach
Road, and we end up with another mess there.
People have the tendency of saying, I \vant to drive to the beach,
and I want to park my vehicle either at the beach or at parking spots
that are designated. But the problem is, all those fill up and they park
every place, and then they park in people's driveways and the whole
nine yards because there's not enough parking even on Bluebill where
vve got these parking spots from the Dunes when they built that
proj ect.
i\nd they're parking in the park, they're parking all over the
place, and they're vvalking to the beach. And if they can't get there,
then they'll wait in line to get into the park, so that's \vhat the real
problen1 is.
Page 161
May 10,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER H~NNING: Marla, do you think you have
some resources to resolve or assist in this issue as far as the backup of
traffic? You know, contracting the sheriff is going to be very
expenSIve.
MS. RAMSEY: Well, the only people that we have that do any
traffic is really the park ranger, and they're not authorized to do it on
the street, only within the park themselves.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it's up to sheriffs department
to enforce the laws?
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. We do not have that authority to
do the traffic element.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I believe the proposal that the
sheriffs bringing us is a lot cheaper to the taxpayers in the long run
than to put deputies down there at overtime. I believe your fee is a
little over $34 an hour; is that correct?
MR. WELCH: Yes, sir. It's 34.83 an hour.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you're saying to do this high-use
times. What are high-use times?
MR. WELCH: Weekends, any beach holidays, mainly Memorial
Day, Mother's Day, Father's Day, July 4th. There's six of them, I
believe. Commissioner Halas has a note from me exactly which ones
were provided from the park service. We also have the issues during
the two weeks of spring break, which is the one for Collier County
and the one for Lee County. They sort of all run together, and we get
messes down there during the daytime for those two weeks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioners, what -- you've
heard the story what do you think?
Do I hear a motion to approve this?
(Commissioner Henning left the hearing room.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we approve
the funds to assist the sheriffs department in regards to problems on
Page 162
~--~^
,.,__ .c.._.. ~ ¡ ,~
--'-,--"'-
May 10, 2005
the beach down there and along Gulfshore Drive on high-use points
that was brought out by the sheriff in regards to the holidays,
weekends, and beach holidays such as two 'weeks, I believe, in the
spring break.
C()lvHvIISSIONER COLETTA: I'm willing to second do we
have a cap on it though?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The cap is basically the
information that the sheriffs department gave us, and I think that
should be suitable to address this issue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What is the cap? I mean, has anybody
mentioned any cost?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's about $66,000, I believe,
$65,000.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: A year?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: A year.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And in your motion you said you
wanted to assist the sheriffs department. What does that mean?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, no, no. Basically what I said
is to give the funding to the sheriff so that he can bring in off-duty
officers to take care of this particular problem.
And I think one other -- one other aspect that we're going to try to
work on, since the state park was very reluctant in a number of
n1eetings that we had in regards to assisting us in this traffic issue,
\ve're going to look at, if there is a way that we can tack on a fee for
each car that goes through the gate of the state park, like 50 cents, and
possibly use that as a way to defray the cost.
But until that point, until we investigate that possibility, we are
asking that the county help us or help the citizens down there in
regards to this until such time as we can get this resolved, and
hopefully the state \vill assist us in this thing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is a request for $66,000 for next
vear or --
Page 163
May 10,2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. This would be starting -- we're
hoping to have this institut~d by this upcoming Memorial Day
\veekend, because this is when we're really going to be hit hard.
MR. WELCH: Yes, sir. Once--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What's the source of funds?
MR. MUDD: Sir, I can take it out of the UFR, the UFR list right
now, and I'm developing that list. And right now it's about $4.9
million. Half -- about half a million is reoccurring of that 9. -- of the
4.9.
Why don't you direct staff to come back to the next board
meeting with a contract laid out with all the stipulations locked in in
order to process, and take it from the unfinanced requirement list.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want to withdraw your original
motion and make the motion that County Manager is suggesting?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I'll withdraw my first motion
and -- with the -- I'll have a new motion here that we direct staff to
draw up a contract with all the stipulations and to make sure that all
parties that are involved in this, that it's in total agreement.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, you have a
question?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'd like that to contain
something so that we can have a sheet of paper with data telling us
how many hours a day on these days, which days of the year that
you're talking about, and how many deputies on duty on those
particular days for those particular hours so we really get a good idea
of what we're talking about.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, what we're talking about--
and this will be in the -- the information that will be brought forth by
staff when this comes back to the Board of County Çommissioners,
it's eight hours a day from eight till four, Saturdays and Sundays, and
then holidays, the same stipulation, eight hours a day. And I believe --
Page 164
,~.._---,~,,--,.
Mav 10. 2005
MR. MUDD: Two deputies, two deputies.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Two deputies, exactly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saYIng aye.
CC)]'vlT\v1ISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Thank you very much.
MR. WELCH: Thank you.
Itenl #1 OB
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A DEVELOPERS
CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH W AL-MART, \\lCI
COMMUNITIES, INC., AND RIMAR, INC. TO DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCT SIX LANE IMPROVEMENTS ON SR 951 FROM
US 41 SOUTH TO NORTH OF HENDERSON CREEK IN
ADVANCE OF AND AS AN EXTENSION TO THE COUNTY'S
C{JRRENT SIX-LANING PROJECT FROM US 41 TO DAVIS
BOULEVARD - DENIED; COUNTY ATTORNEY TO GIVE
vVRlTTEN OPINION (LEGAL INTRETATION) TO ALL
ENTITIES AS TO THEIR OPTIONS
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Manager, are we going to
gO to lOB?
'-'
J\lIR. MUDD: Yes, sir, and that is a recomn1endation to approve
a developer's contribution agreement with Wal-Mart, WCI
C~)nlnlunities, Inc., and Stonebreak Homes, LLC, to design and
Page 165
--"-~-
May 10, 2005
construct six-lane improvements on State Road 951 from U.S. 41
South to north of Henderson Creek in advance of and as an extension
to the county's current six-laning project from U.S. 41 to Davis
Boulevard, and Mr. Don Scott, Transportation Planning Director, will
present.
(Commissioner Henning entered the hearing room.)
MR. SCOTT: Good afternoon. Don Scott, Transportation
Planning.
These DCA's were done to get the money needed to six-lane
from the south portion of Wal * Mart up to the intersection essentially
to mitigate for their proposed development.
The agreement includes a payment of 1.644 million for design
and construction of the improvements above and beyond impact fees.
The improvements add more trips than what was taken at this location
by the three developments. Essentially the improvement adds 480
peak hour/peak direction trips, and the three developments are
included within these agreements and the developer contribution
agreements adds 300 peak hour/peak direction trips.
What we've -- how we've set this up is that the six -laning south of
the intersection and through the intersection essentially would be done
starting at the beginning of next season and try to get it done in time
for the opening of the Wal-Mart by August 1st, which in the
agreement calls for August 1 st, 2006.
We originally looked at having this agreement pay for the design
and include it within the construction project to the north, but based on
the some of the stipulations the board's been going through and some
of the questions that were raised, we're trying to get the project done
timed with the building of the Wal-Mart.
The agreement is consistent with the discussion that took place at
the .AUIR meeting \vhere we looked at possible solu~ions for
l11itigation for the development. Essentially either we make the
in1proven1ent -- or they pay to make the improvement, we make the
Page 166
__m'_~"'"'_'~'_'__
May 10. 2005
in1provement, or they make the improvement themselves.
The way it's set up right now is they pay us, \ve make the
improvement, include it within the design we have to the north, but
then separate the project out and do the construction separate.
It is contingent from our standpoint. We're trying to get permits
by next February or March so that we can start just after season.
There are some questions from the permitting side, but it looks like, if
everything works out, that we'd have it done by the time they open
August 1 st, 2006.
Are there any questions?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Questions, Commissioners?
We have three public speakers. Do you want to wait for then1 or
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's call the first witness.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Thomas Bolf. I-Ie'll be
fo Howed by Rich Y ovanovich.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Three minutes.
MR. BOLF: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Thomas Bolf with the law firm of Ruden McCloskey, 200 East
Broward Boulevard in Ft. Lauderdale. I'm representing the owner of
the property that the Wal-Mart is buying as well as Wal-Mart, that's
Gateway shops.
We've been working on this agreement since February with your
staff. We are at a much different position than where we thought \ve
would end up being. Your staff has been very persuasive in obtaining
fron1 the owner of the property and from W al- Mart far in excess of
what we anticipated we would end up having to fund at this time.
It looks like, from our perspective that this allo\vs this project to
be llloved up years ahead of \vhen it othervvise \vould be required to be
done, and to be done basically at no cost to the county.
In fact, our figures sho\v that the total contribution for doing the
Page 16ï
May 10,2005
construction is about 1.5 million under these agreements, and we
understand that the actual c~sts may be closer to $900,000 depending
upon how you actually do the project. So not only do you fund this
project, but you may actually end up with a fairly significant amount
of money left over after that for other projects if you choose.
As Mr. Scott noted, we are not solving our problems. We are
more than solving any traffic that we are placing on this project. Four
hundred eighty peak hour trips are being satisfied here.
The comer parcel where the Wal-Mart's going will generate 120
trips. So they're contributing a million dollars plus another $150,000
worth of design costs, plus $2.4 million worth of impact fees that are
over and above this, plus a traffic signal of about $400,000, which is
over and above this, for a total of about $3.8 million for this
transportation, when apparently it will actually costs less than a
million dollars to actually build and design their impact to this
intersection.
As I indicated, we originally anticipated that all of these expenses
were going to be much less, and that's because at the AUIR workshop
we understood that when this segment of 951 was converted from a
state proj ect to county proj ect, that that was so that our impact fees
could then be used to build this project. That was our pretty clear
understanding, real clear understanding at that point in time. That was
December. All right.
There's been talk today about, you know, how negotiations
should occur and how representations should be lived up to and
whatnot. But notwithstanding that, we understand there's been some
concerns about traffic in this area, and we're willing to do our part, and
more than that. And so we believe that what staff has been successful
in negotiating is appropriate here.
There has been some talk about when this proj ~ct will be done
and whether we can take that on. We don't think we're the best for
that. vVe think the county is much better suited for that. That was one
Page 168
.-~--'.
...~^,.,-,.--_._.."
--,-,--~.,._.".,"..,_._,_.
Mav 10, 2005
.I
of the reasons -- what Wal-Mart got out of this was certainty, kno\ving
we could have the road done and knowing we could have it done and
that we could open, because that's what we need. Wal-Mart needs
certainty .
.A.nd so that's the deal from our perspective, is we get on proceed
and work through this. And I know there's some concern that well,
what if its end of August or the end of September, and I would just
note, obviously that's off season, and that I don't see that as a
significant problem for the county if for four weeks, six weeks after
Wal-Mart is open, the road is finally finished. We're not talking about
the middle of the season in February here. Thank you. Appreciated it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Rich Yovanovich. He'll be
followed by your final speaker, Reed Jarvi.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
1V1R. YOV ANOVICH: For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on
behalf of the WCI and Remar, the two residential developers that are
involved in this as well.
I spent a lot of time coordinating with your staff a solution to a
problem which obviously was a transportation-related problem. I
don't want to repeat a lot of what Mr. Bolf already said, but \ve did
work \vith your staff to make sure that the design did not come out of
the county's pocket nor the construction costs related to the fix, come
out of the county's pocket.
As you know, WCI's been around the county for a while. They
have the Land's End project that they're looking forward to bringing
online here shortly, and we are hopeful that the commission will, in
fact, approve these agreements because this is actually what the
conculTency management system was supposed to do. When there
\vas a problem with the road, if it \vas not scheduled to be improved.
the development community was to come forward and fix the problen1
on their o\vn din1e essentially, and that's what's happened, or they
Page 169
May 10,2005
could wait until the road improvements got scheduled.
The county is getting a free road or free improvement plus a
tremendous amount of impact fees paid up front sooner than otherwise
would be required to be paid up front under these developer
contribution agreements.
We hope you will support your staff and go ahead and approve
all three developer contribution agreements.
And with that, if you have any questions regarding either of the
two projects, I'd be happy to answer them, and I'll be getting rid of the
tie and suit, and they will not be showing up again at another planning
meeting, I mean, another board meeting.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Reed Jarvi is your final speaker.
MR. JARVI: My name's Reed Jarvi. Professional Engineer for
Vanasse Daylor, and I've been working with this particular project for
about three and a half, maybe even four years now, with both the
compo plan permitting zoning SDP and FDOT permitting for the Wal-
Mart. I also represent the Land's End, the WCI people.
And I just want to say pretty much the same thing the last two
people said, the process has been long. We've been working on the
951 fix for going on a year. You may remember it was, I believe, the
June 22nd meeting of '04 when the transportation department brought
up the state of the concurrency system in Collier County, at which
time State Road 951 was deemed the only segment that was below
concurrency standards. This will be a solution to that, and I highly
urge to you approve it to make that change. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you. ,
Does staff have any more to say about any of this?
And Commissioner Henning has a question. Let him try it first.
Page 170
May 10, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is all the improvements going to
be on 951 ?
MR. SCOTT: Yes, they are.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. How long is that
intersection of 951 and 41, with these improvements, going to last?
MR. SCOTT: It adds some capacity, but obviously, based on
how fast other developments that are already either vested down there,
like Fiddler's Creek, build or other -- actually development on Marco
Island or places that we don't have any control over, it's -- it remains
to be seen. It will probably be through the rest of this year and some
of next year. I don't know about beyond that.
One of the things that is being discussed is improvements above
and beyond the intersection in1provements. As part of the PD&E
study for U.S. 41, they will be looking at the intersection of 41 and
951, which might be a fly-over, an overpass. And the other thing that
came up, you know, recently, is an east/west, a north/south road east
of 951 either along FP&L or, you know, further to the east to hook up
to say, Greenway in that area to take some of the trips from the east
out of the intersection and 951.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we try to base on capital
in1provements, on the ultimate buildout based upon if it's going to last
for -- is it 15 years?
MR. SCOTT: I know Nonnan said in the past 10 years. You
know, obviously our -- you know, we look out 20 years as part of a
project, but about 10 years.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Example. You got a
t\vo-lane roadway. The ultimate buildout is in six lanes and propose
to do four lanes. You're not going to six lanes based upon it's going to
last for -- is it 10 or is it IS?
MR. SCOTT: It would be about 10 years.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So can \ve guarantee this
inlDrovement will last for 10 years?
~ ,.I
Page 1 71
May 10, 2005
MR. SCOTT: No, we can't.
COMMISSIONER H~NNING: Okay.
MR. SCOTT: We've had--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why would we want to make an
agreement knowing that it's going to fail in the ultimate years?
And, you know, knowing that this store and this development is
going to bring a lot of trips into the area, attracted trips, why would we
want to approve an agreement knowing that it's only going to fail and
not 1m owing what the ultimate is, is whether those capital
improvements will be torn out or not?
MR. SCOTT: We've had a lot of discussions at the staff level
and with them also regarding that issue. Obviously as we go through,
we don't always build the ultimate of everything. I mean, obviously
the six-Ianing of 1-75 really isn't the ultimate, what we're doing, but it
also gives you added capacity until you get to, say, the 10 lanes of
1-75.
One of the issues here is, we don't -- with the PD&E study, you're
talking about five years out before we're ever going to get that answer.
It's, yes, that you're going to get that answer and get it constructed,
too.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I may add one piece of
infoffi1ation that you don't know or you haven't read yet. The growth
management plan that just got passed by the House basically says by
December of 2006, we will change our compo plan to allow
proportionate share, okay? Proportionate share is your impact fee, and
that's all you get from that developer is his impact, and you don't get
that extra piece. .
So if that doesn't change the next legislative cycle and they don't
take that piece out, this will probably be the last kind of an agreement
you'll get either with Ave Maria or this particular issue.
Proportionate share is direct impact. It has nothing to do with
other roads in the county or additional traffic. It has just exactly what
Page 1 72
M 10 Joe-,
a y , _L,
that person has on the direct impact that they have on that particular
segment of roadway.
That's why I was calling Stan right now, because we're still trying
to sort through that. And I asked him about proportionate share
because I saw it in the bill, and that was his take on it, too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I also believe that it said --
and I talked to the DCA director on this -- is, you know, the county
doesn't have to build capital improvements for development. It also
can have the development build -- make the capital improvements
themselves, so --
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, if I could, for the record, Norm
Feder, Transportation Administrator. Your point is well taken,
Commissioner, even beyond the legislation.
What you do have here, the six lanes that they'll be doing for a
half a mile will be the ultimate improvement. The real issue, and a lot
of what you're getting out of this project, is going through the
intersection. I think it was noted before that we had some problems,
\ve had to come back and modify the state effort because it didn't go
through the intersection and didn't have the receiving lanes just to the
north. That's what this project would being doing, and that's why you
get that capacity initially.
Ultimately, if we don't have other alignments or, depending what
comes out of the PD&E study, we're going to make other
in1provements and need to make them. Whether that's a year, two
years, I doubt it's 10, we have that need, and we know that.
But what you have right now is a concurrency system, ours
process, appropriately applied that said, we cannot move forward on
development requests, ones here and others, on that section of 41
because today, with what is out there in traffic and vvhat we add on for
vested trips, we don't have sufficient capacity.
Then you look at our 315, and it says, okay, if that's the case,
either development waits until sufficient capacity's provided -- in this
Page 173
May 10, 2005
case, by the state, it's a state road or possibly with the county -- or they
can come through and make the improvement.
In this case they are making the improvement that provides
adequate capacity for them to move. I would like to think I could get
them to make an improvement that would last for 20 years.
From a practical sense, I don't know that we can ask that of them,
and so I think we've pushed as hard as we can. Whether or not they
feel enough pain, I think we gained a very good item of improvement
in establishing more capacity than what they would consume, and they
are making that improvement under the provision that if they can't go
because there isn't adequate capacity, they make the improvement, just
as you now said, as the secretary of DCA said, if we can't do it, we're
not ready to do it, or in this case the state hasn't done it and isn't ready
to do it, then they're coming in and they're offering to go up front and
do it and not hit our impact fees in the process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Except for we're going to build
it?
MR. FEDER: We're going to build it, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. FEDER: And Don mentioned that we need to make sure
that the petmitting issues are addressed by them as they pay for the
design and move forward on the design.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Notm, what you're telling us then
is that the agreement that we're about to embark on here is basically to
take care of the necessary traffic impact by these three developments?
And if -- if I remember what Don Scott was saying, this is only for a
short-tetm, probably no longer than one year or a year and a half, and
then \ve're going to be at max capacity and we're going to be out of
concurrence; is that correct? .
MR. FEDER: Generally that's true, Commissioner, and it
depenàs how fast. how long -- how other growth comes. But the point
Page 174
""----""
May 10, 2005
to be made here is we are six-laning, which is our ultimate
configuration.
If, for instance, we only had two lanes there and they were
proposing this to go to four, we could pursue the issue of six-laning
may be \v'Ìth them. The only other option we have is another
alignment that they don't have control over or grade separation. And
as I said, we are still receiving their impact fees to work towards what
comes out of the PD&E study with the state.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So, therefore, if we move
on with this as an approval, where do we stand as far as addressing
additional capacity for some of the stuff that's already been -- that's
already been approved or is going to be approved in the future? And
what is the timeline for looking at some alternative measures?
MR. FEDER: Okay. First part of the question, essentially it's --
our system is first come, first serve. That's true if I have capacity out
there today. Those that came before them consulned that and got us
into the position where we had to say no to this development until
more capacity was provided.
To the issue of where we're going from there, our long-range
transportation plan is evaluating alternates, the FP &L that Don
l11entioned further to the east. We're working with the state with your
efforts. We advanced the project development environment study
after we got them to put it in on 41 East Trail from 951 on out.
They've committed to us to accelerate that, and in particular, to
look at the intersection in this area and other alternatives, and that is
being done. We're probably about a year away fron1 that PD&E.
Even accelerated -- it's already begun, but as far as conclusions~
about a year away before we'd know what comes out of that study.
Doesn't get a bill, but that gives us an answer of what we're going to
do, and how we're going to go about it, plus our o\vn study by the end
of the calendar year.
COrvI:L\1ISSIONER HALAS: So then \vhere does that lead us if
Page 175
May 10, 2005
we look at a study and find out that we have to have a fly-over? When
would we get started on tha~?
MR. FEDER: Again, we'd then have to bring that into our
program, assuming we would fund it. Honestly, Commissioner, until
we start the process, we don't know, and that's what we're trying to do
right now.
Each new development will come on. If there's available
capacity we can move it. If there isn't, they'd have to find, if they
could, any alternate to provide capacity. If they couldn't then it would
have to wait until we had a solution, if that turned out to be grade
separation or new alignment.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is deja vu all over again.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. First of all, is there -- is there a
second internal road exiting this also, and does it go out to u.s. 41?
MR. SCOTT: Yes, it does.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And is that the portion of U.S. 41
where it narrows down to two lanes?
MR. SCOTT: It is in the two-lane section, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So why aren't we fixing that?
MR. SCOTT: That's part of the PD&E study is to look at 41
widening. Really they're looking at from -- FDOT's looking at from
951 all the way out to 92, what improvements need to be done on that
corridor in the future.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But that doesn't solve the problem
now, does it?
MR. SCOTT: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then you were saying this is the
ultimate improvement, but if it's only going to last a ,couple years, do
\ve really need to even approve this?
MR. SCOTT: Well, six lanes is our maximum through lanes
Page 176
J\;lay 10. 2005
everywhere we have in the county essentially, except for over the
Gordon River Bridge, so that's what Norrnan means by six lanes, six
lanes through the intersection. It doesn't matter if we build an
overpass, don't build an overpass. We will still have to six-lane in this
port]on,.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? Oh, I'm sorry.
were you finished?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, for now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Let me ask the question a
little bit differently. This particular cooperative agreement that we're
coming up with, will it -- after \ve meet the -- after the entities go into
place that were going to be, the Target and the different other
communities take place and they need it to be able to make happen.
\vhat will be the net gain for the public that's out there? Will we be
ahead with what they're going to put in after we meet their needs, or is
it going to be something that we're just breaking even or we're losing?
MR. SCOTT: No. We're Inaking a net gain of 180 peak
hour/peak direction trips.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's over and above --
MR. SCOTT: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words, what they're
putting in would meet their needs and give us 180 in addition to that?
MR. SCOTT: That's correct. And those developments won't
development all of their -- you know, obviously even with the Wal-
Mart, the outparcels aren't going to be developed right away, and all
the houses aren't going to be built right away either.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's me make sure I've got this straight.
\Ve're going to enter into a development agreen1ent that will, at the
very best, get us through a year, maybe a little longer, and then we're
going to be out of concurrence again, yet we have all sorts of
developments lined up right behind these who are going to be wanting
Page 1 77
May 10,2005
to put traffic on that road, and we're not sure, because of recent
legislation, that we're going to have the income stream to address that.
Now, this is insanity, and, quite frankly, I'm not in the mood to
even consider another development along that corridor. I don't care
what they contribute.
You know, I have -- I have just about reached my limit of trying
to sort through these bisontine paths of logic that somehow seem to
solve a problem for a very, very short period of time but put us right
back in the same difficulty in a year or two years with no source of
funding to deal with it, and I would much prefer to just say, close the
door, I don't want to see another development coming in here until
we've got a long-term solution for this issue. This is crazy.
You know, we've got the legislature on the one hand interfering
in our ability to collect enough funds to sustain our concurrency
system, and on the other hand we've got developers who don't seem on
to \vhat happened long-term planning really is for us. We're not going
to be able to solve the whole thing.
So I don't know about you, but I don't want to hear any more
them. I just will not vote for any more development along 951 or any
other corridor that is overburden, end of story, and I don't care what
the implications are. I'm tired of it, I really am.
MR. BOLF: May I respond on behalf of the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can do whatever you like. You've
got three minutes.
MR. BOLF: I think what is, perhaps, being missed here is that if
-- regardless of who comes to this site, there's only a certain amount of
money that, according to the statutes, you would be entitled to receive
from them at some point, and what this does is fund a substantial
amount over and above that so the public wins both in the terms of
trips and long-term. ,
I don't think anyone is saying that road is going to be constructed
and then tom up in a year or two. I think what the concern is is that
Page 1 78
May 10, 2005
the next developer down the road is going to have to have his area
widened and is going to have to contribute as well.
And so you're going to have a very long road here, and everyone
needs to build their fair share, and that's what we're certainly
suggesting that we do at this area.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You see, but that's the problem. It's not
just the people who build on this road that have an impact upon it.
There's development all throughout that transportation impact area.
And the way this legislation apparently is written doesn't give us the
flexibility to do much other than what is a particular fair share
payment by a developer on a particular roads segment.
MR. BOLF: And this contribution agreement gives you more
than that, far more.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I understand that, I understand
that. And I'm just telling you that I've been fighting problem now for
alnl0st four years. Every time we consider this, we find different
interpretations of what's happening.
We're told by staff that, yes, this meets concurrency and
everything is fine, and then we get in the public hearing and we find
that it's only going to be fine for a year. I'm not interested in getting
myself into that kind of a problem. I'd like to see some longer teml
solutions for this process.
Now, I have been one of the primary defenders of this process for
the last three years, but what I am seeing and getting squeezed
betvveen current developments and our legislature in Tallahassee, 1'111
not interested in getting squeezed any more, okay?
So I'm out of this game. You're not getting my vote, okay?
MR. BOLF: If I might, you were gracious enough to give nle
sonle time, and that is, that in addition to doing the road in front of us.
\vhich, in my vie\v, solves our problem, we're contributing another
$2.4 to assist you in doing other transportation improvements.
l\nd so, I know that you want a solution that vvill solve
Page 179
May 10, 2005
everything. I don't blame you at all for that. All I'm saying is you're
not -- you can't get it at onetime. It has to come from a variety of
players, and we're one of them and we're doing 100 percent of our
part, and maybe 200 percent of our part. We just don't want to get run
over by the bigger --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I understand, and I appreciate your
willingness to negotiate with staff, and I understand you've given a lot
here. And I'm not being particularly critical of any of the people
involved in this thing. I think you've all done a good job in
negotiating with us, but I am particularly upset to learn just today
about this legislation. It was unclear to me until today, and I, quite
frankly, am not going to sit in the middle and get squeezed from both
ends. I've had it. I really have.
MR. BOLF: Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: May I -- can I -- Mr. Chairman, if you
don't mind, Ed Griffith from WCI did not register to speak, but can I
ask your indulgence to let him speak about the impact to WCI?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I understand the impact to all of the
petitioners. I know it is not good.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But, Commissioner, we're in a positions
where we have -- you know, we are approved projects. We're not
proj ects that are asking for approval, but we're already approved with
the -- you know, we're approved PUDs asking to solve a problem that,
you know, we're part of the problem. We want to fix that and we're
giving you more than the legislation.
Apparently the legislature's talking about taking away the ability
to enter into these types of agreements.
I would think that we might want to take advantage of the ability
to enter into these agreements while we can, and hopefully in the next
year convince our representatives that they need to fix the problem
and allow for communities to address their issues with getting more
Page 180
May 10, 2005
than just an impact fee.
And, you know, I do think that, you know, this was a good idea
not too long ago, and all of a sudden because someone, you know, the
legislature may not have done what we wanted --
CI-IAIRMAN COYLE: No, it's more than that. It's that we sit
here getting a staff recommendation that says they support this -- and
it happened before on a similar situation. Then you come in here to
the public hearing and the staff is telling us something different.
Yeah, sure it meets concurrency, but only for a year, and now we're in
a problem.
What's your solution to get out of it? There's no solution there.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, they're in a PD&E study to find out
if \ve need to do an overpass, but keep in mind we're giving you all of
our impact fees in advance that will help solve that ultin1ate solution.
Plus, you won't have to use a million six of impact fee monies
that you would use right now to have to fix the problem. You're going
to get that for free. And I think WCI and other who have, you knO\V,
invested in this community under a system that would allow us to
come fix our own problem, you know, we need that certainty. We
need to know that the system that's in place that would allow a
deficiency to be fixed will be honored, and that's what we've been
negotiating for months with staff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think you still have the legal right to fix
\vhatever the deficiency is.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's what we're asking you to do is
let us fix the deficiency.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But, no, you're asking us to be
the contractor for doing it.
MR. yaV ANOVICH: Comn1issioner, if that's the issue, I mean,
I'111 sure we can come back to you \vith a proposal \vhere we do the
constnlction. We thought it was simpler to get the fix done because
you're already going to be doing improvements. And \ve're funding
Page 181
May 10,2005
them. We think we can build it cheaper, quite honestly. I mean, we
think we could build it for --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think you could build it faster.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know we could probably build it faster
and cheaper.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. It's my understanding of the law
that you have the right to do that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I can't do that unless I get -- unless I get
your approval to do that. And we're essentially doing the same thing,
Commissioner. We're covering whatever costs you would incur to
build the improvement versus our building it ourselves. It's not
coming out of the taxpayers' pocket whatsoever.
And Don, correct me if I'm wrong, we're paying 100 percent of
the design costs and we're paying 100 percent of the construction
costs. We're paying your contractor versus paying our contractor.
If the issue is who is paying the contractor, give us some time,
we'll -- WCI will be happy to take all this money in and manage the
contract, if that's the issue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: David, do they not have the legal right to
do this?
MR. WEIGEL: I'm not sure I understand the question. Do you
mean do they have the legal right without any kind of agreement with
the county to go ahead and fix the roads or --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no. I'm suggesting that they have
the right to do this to come into compliance with our concurrency
requirements without any involvement by the county other than
issuing approval for the project. Do they or do they not have the right
to do this?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think they do, but I want to make sure I
do understand the question. If the question is in lieu ,of a developer
contribution agreement like this, can the board approve them to -- they
have to make an arrangement with the county to have -- in this case
Page 182
,....--.--.--.---
May 10. 2005
the developer contribution agreement, the county's going to be doing
all of the \-vork, or through i~s own contractors, the work on the county
facilities and interconnecting with the state as well.
They do need permission from the county in some form of an
agreen1ent or approval so they can act without acting through the
county, if that's what your question is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's my understanding all they need is a
finding of concurrency on your part if they do this. We don't have to
approve their contract?
MR. WEIGEL: No, not this -- not this contract, certainly, but I'll
ask Don Scott or Norman to say what do they need from the county in
regards to execute this --
MR. SCOTT: Well, they'd have to get right of way permits --
MR. WEIGEL: Right.
MR. SCOTT: -- from FDOT to work in their right-of-way, and if
going through the intersection north, get right-of-way permits from liS.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But other than that, that's it, right?
MR. SCOTT: Yeah.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So let me make sure I understand this. If
we go on our own, we get a right-of-way permit, we do the design for
the improvements and we construct the improvements, we will get a
certificate of adequate public facility for our project?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's the question I have. Because the
\vay we did it for Livingston Road, and I was involved in that -- you
know, Bonita Bay built Livingston Road. We still had to do a
developer contribution agreement to do that even though we paid all
the contractors and basically got impact fee credits in that case in
return. We still had to have a developer contribution agreement with
the county, and that's why I thought \ve had to do the same.
And Sable Bay is the saIne thing for Thomasson Drive. There's a
developer contribution agreement in place. We built it and permitted
Page 183
May 10, 2005
it -- well, not me, but the Colliers -- Collier Enterprises did that but
there was still a developer agreement in place.
And that's all we're simply trying to do is what's been done in the
past is enter into the agreement, we'll fund it. If you want to change it
to where instead of you all constructing it, we revise it and come back
at the next meeting and say, we'll hire the contractor and be
responsible for the costs. We can make that change. Will that make
you more comfortable with--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It would make me a lot more
comfortable. I don't know about the other commissioners. The other
commissioners have some questions.
Who was up first?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Are all three of these -- you
had said WCI was approved. All three of these projects--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- approved already?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, ma'am. We're all at the stage where
we're ready to get our SDP issued. We're going to get -- we have an
Army Corps of Engineer sign-off. We don't have our Army Corps of
Engineer sign-off. I don't know if Wal-Mart does or not.
But once we get that, we have our SDPs in, our plats are in, we're
ready to be approved. We're ready to go. It's not like we're just
starting the process. I mean, we're far along in the process, and we're
trying to solve the problem. If the mechanics are we need to build the
road ourselves, I'm sure we can work that out.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But still, it's only going to last a
year. So, you know, what difference does it make if you build it or
not? It's still going to -- you know, it's not going to b,e functional --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But there will be additional trips, as you
heard. There will be additional 180 peak hour trips that someone else
Page 184
May 1 O~ 2005
is going to get for free. Well, but, you know, it solves the problem,
COl11111issioner. There are people who have spent a lot of money to
buy property and get ready to develop a property knowing that one of
the options is to fix a transportation problem at their expense versus
the county's expense.
This is a significant issue for companies like WCI and others. I
mean, this is probably going to be the only time where there's
somebody coming to you and saying, we'd like to fix the problem.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't know if it really makes a
difference if the county builds it or if you build it. That I don't see as
tremendous issue with me. Maybe it might save a little money, maybe
it \vill get done a little sooner.
What I see is an issue is the fact that we're talking about an
infrastructure improvement that we're not going to pay for with our tax
n1oney. We're not going to raise our taxes here. The ad valorem's
going to stay right where it is. We're planning to do that.
The only way we can get this done is the same with Oil Well
Road and like they did with Livingston, is we have to have you and
every other developer step up to the plate and do it. I don't see this as
a big thing.
Yes, I'm very concerned about where we're going to go in the
future as far as what's going to happen the next year and the year after
that and the year after that. But not doing the improvement now, it's
going to be a negative. If we tell them no, we're not going to do it, we
n1ay as well place a moratoriun1 on the whole area and just shut
everything down in that whole area and just forget it for a while.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, it is definitely not a motion.
But I'Ill just telling you, it's the same thing as what you're talking
about, like a forced moratorium, which will solve nothing, and it
hasn!t in the past \vhen they did it.
Page 185
May 10, 2005
And at that point in time, then you're going to have to raise taxes
to be able to cover what yo~'re going to have to do, and these boys
might not be there to get up to the plate.
I, for one, am going to make a motion that we approve this
developer's agreement and we get on with the fight, and then we make
sure our P &D (sic) study takes place when it's supposed to take place
and that we plan for these things rather than worrying about the
bogeyman in the closet.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm ready to vote.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let me get this straight in my
mind. Presently WCI is approved. Wal-Mart is not approved.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, they are. Wal-Mart was approved-
Wal-Mart's first in line, actually.
MR. SCOTT: The site development plan's not approved. The
zoning, everything's approved, pending resolution of what he talked
about with permits and also the concurrency issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We never approved Wal-Mart.
I got to correct that. We never approved Wal-Mart for this site.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We didn't have to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We approved a PUD.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So now we know we have a
huge traffic issue there. That site development plan cannot be
approved until we get through this scenario; is that correct?
MR. SCOTT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The other -- what's the other
one that was here? Wal-Mart and--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Remar.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Remar, okay. That was also
approved?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir.
Page 186
May 10. 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And they also have a traffic
issue here, too, right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My problem is -- and it's on the
saIne line as what Commissioner Coletta has, and that is we're just
doing this on a short-term basis. How do we -- do you have any silver
bullets left in your chamber today, after today, that __
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Been shooting blanks, apparently.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Be careful, you might be a
target.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How do we get through this so that
we can meet not concurrency for one year, for two years, but to meet
concurrency for five to 10 years?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if -- and Don -- but one of the
things -- and I'm going to get David into the middle of this
conversation, because we're really on a slippery slope.
You basically have a bunch of developments down in this reach
of the county that can't get an SDP approved because there isn't
enough road trips on the road so that they can bring their
developments on. You have a developer coming forward, three of
them in this particular case, that are basically saying, I'm going to
solve that concurrency issue with my developments. And they're
coming forward in order to make that happen for you, okay.
If that's not good enough, then you have a moratorium issue,
okay, and I think you need to declare one. Now, you're going to have
to get out of that within a year. You've got a developer coming
fOf\vard to solve the concurrency issues -_
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This whole discussion is just out
of control. We are not saying moratorium. What we're saying is, \ve
\vant to make improvements that are going to last. That's all we're
saying. That's all we're saying on this whole thing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I think what you're saying
Page 187
May 10,2005
here -- I think what -- if we look at this under a microscope, we're just
saying that these three PUDs are basically addressing their issues only
and no one else's; am I right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. MUDD: They're coming in with 180 additional trips during
high --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: See, that's the problem. They shouldn't
have to address including other than their own impact.
The problem I've got is on the other end we've got the legislation
which is saying that we cannot get these kinds -- or additional kinds of
support in the future and might limit how we go about collecting
impact fees.
So that's my concern. It's not that they're not paying enough.
They're paying their fair share, which is all they're -- which is all they
have to pay in accordance with the law.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. But, Commissioner, I think
maybe what we should do is look at just this and not look at what's in
the -- in the package in the legislation, and just take care of what we
need to do -- get accomplished at the present time, and I think then
we'll have to worry about how we're going to address, once we have a
breakdown of exactly what was passed in Tallahassee at the 11 th hour.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you're -- you're only partly right
there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, you need to deal with this issue, but
if you don't deal with the sustainability portion of concurrency, you're
never going to achieve it.
And that's the problem that I see happening here is that what's
happening is that we're being squeezed on the other end so that we
have no way of really making sure that we're going ~o be able to
sustain concurrency even when we get it. These people will provide
the improvements that will get concurrency.
Page 188
May 10, 2005
The question is, how do we make sure it stays concurrent? We--
our ability is being removed from to us do that, and that's my concern.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, but not by us. I mean, it's --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not by you.
J\dR_. -YOV ANOVICH: It's a legislative issue that mayor may
not be an issue. You know, I could tell you that I know a certain
person that I'll be talking to in my office pretty directly about, we've
got to fix this problem, because, you know, I don't want to sit up here
at the podium again and listen about how the legislature has taken
away flexibility for the county to solve problems.
I mean -- but at the same time, you've got the money now . You
may not get the money again if the leg -- you may as well take what
you have because it's going to solve one problem, and we can address
the next problem with, you know, what is the ultimate decision, what
is the ultimate fix for other development in the area. We can address
that through the PD&E study.
And if there's not money there to fund it, the development
community's going to have to find a way to come up \vith that money
or make sure that there's legislation in place to allow for that fix. But
to punish existing and approved developments when they could fix the
problem and then some -- these improvements will be there to be used
by these developments. It's not going away.
There will be another day where someone may have to come in
and say, you know what, I've got to come up with another plan to
extend the improvements, and in the meantime, we need to deal with
the Florida legislature and tour address the very real issue -- because
you've said it more than once -- that this is an issue that the legislature
has taken away flexibility from you all to solve problems.
But you still have the flexibility to solve the problem today, and
\-vhy can't we fix that problem?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta, do you have
another question, or are we going to get to vote?
Page 189
May 10, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I just wanted to
emphasize again what's bee!! said about it. What takes place in our
state legislative body has nothing at all with -- has to do with here
today. We're talking about found money that's going to be able to
move this one step forward.
If they change the rules next week, next month, next year, it's not
going to affect this. This still -- this is a given. This isn't going to
change. And if we turn it down because of something that may
happen, I don't see where the gain is. I really don't. I think we're
going to be a little bit farther behind the eightball.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, make a motion. Let's get this over
with.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I make a--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We already have a motion.
MS. FILSON: I have a motion --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But no second.
MS. FILSON: I don't have a second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who made a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I made the motion, right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You made a motion to approve, right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Got a second by Commissioner Halas?
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
ave.
...
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, by like sign.
Page 190
~...._.--"
May 1 O~ 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye
So it fails, with -- 3-2, with Commissioner Coyle, Fiala, and
Henning dissenting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: At this point, why don't you
make a motion for moratorium? That's the only thing you've got left.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I ask a point clarification? Do we or
do we not have the ability to go forward and fix the problem ourselves
now that this agreement has failed?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think you do.
MR. YOV ANVICH: I really --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think you have the legal right to do that
with the approvals that staff discussed with you, except you're going
to be responsible for contracting it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I just really would like that clarified,
because I think that's important. And maybe it affected your vote or
not, I don't know. Maybe you assumed I could fix the problem in your
vote. But if we can't --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If they haven't fixed U.S. 41,
because they're going to be impacting both of them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you can't make them pay more
than their fair share no matter what. So if they're paying their fair
share, it's -- they have a legal right to do that under the law.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what I'm asking. I think you asked
your attorney --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No matter what, you need to
work within the public right-of-way, so you have to have some kind of
agreement \vith Board of Commissioners. So it doesn't end here.
'-'
We're not saying you go out there and build.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm asking if I'm coming back. I 1nean, if
1'111 coming back --
Page 191
May 10,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay., Based on the information from
transportation, it sounds as if they'll -- private petition will need to
work with county as well as state for the appropriate right-of-way
permits to do that work. I can't tell right now if it, in fact, is going to
require, Rich, for you to actually come back before the board, because
right-of-way permits may not -- generally don't require that.
So, Don, do you have any further thought on that?
MR. SCOTT: No. Usually it's' -- right-of-way permits is just
within the staff. It also has to be built to standard. Obviously we don't
want something that's substandard.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but then -- but then our vote
really is null and void, right? So they just go ahead and do it anyway,
right?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what the law says. They have the
right to do that. We can't make them pay more than their fair share.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got a question. Just -- now, if
they go out on their own and build this road, they have to build this to
county standards; is that right?
MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We have to be able to accept it,
right?
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And are they going to take care of
not only the road, but what about all the underground work that's got
to be done?
MR. SCOTT: And they've got to do it to state standards south of
41, because that's a state --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But we have und~rground work
that has to be done also, don't we?
MR. SCOTT: If there's utilities work that have to be done as part
Page 192
Mav 10. 2005
...
of the project, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And that -- they're liable for
that also?
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
C()MMISSIONER FIALA: So does that mean any time
anybody wants to build anything, all they need to do is build their own
road, and they don't even need approval, just right-of-way, and they
can just build it?
MR. WEIGEL: They have the requirement to meet the
concurrency aspects of their particular project.
Now, what may end up is you might say restricted or reduced
parameters of their obligation in the sense that an agreed upon
developer contribution agreement may obtain addition benefit of a
concurrency nature for the county. But they won't legally, under the
law, state law, nor our ordinances, have to do more than what they
have to do for their own development as far as how it will affect
concurrency.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we've been talking about traffic
congestion and trying to -- trying to limit density in these areas just
because of this traffic congestion.
MR. WEIGEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ifwe have no right to do that, then
what are we here for?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, we're here for many things. But
remember, this is merely a developer contribution agreement. It is not
a rezone or a PUD, which you've had up and down 951 recently,
which you've had the same kinds of issues show themselves, because
you've been concerned about concurrency and the impacts of the
approval of new zoning or increased density.
You don't have that here today. It's just a developer contribution
agreement, but you do have the ability to approve it or not to approve
it, and you've taken a vote not to approve it.
Page 193
May 10, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then when the -- yes. And then
when the road fails a year, ~hen who answers to all of the people who
can't use that road?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you, too. You've got some
over there, too.
MR. WEIGEL: That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So we're stuck with whatever
happens then.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, if I could, I just want to make one
further point. And I appreciate the discussion here. And we, as your
staff, are committed to try to promote concurrency and to promote a
long-range sustainable concurrency.
We inherited quite a bit long before this board came in and
before your staff went after your wishes and tried to promote this.
What we're facing is a section, that because of a lot of approvals
in the last past, that with the traffic out there and those vested
approvals added on, has a concurrency problem.
Now, we're trying to find a solution to it. In our long-range plan,
we advanced the issues with the state and want two state roads here to
try and get them moving to come to the answer.
But now while we're facing that, we've got an opportunity to get
six lanes built for a section, improvement to an intersection, and to
take a negative trip count that we have on that one section today and
create, in the end result, a positive 186.
Now, in answer to your question -- and I want to make sure I'm
real clear on it -- as soon as 186 more trips, peak hour trips come on,
I'm back in the same position.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. And we only figured
one-seventh of the concurrency, right? So they sh0l1:1d be coming on
pretty quick.
MR. FEDER: Each year, each year.
Page 194
May 10, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Each year, right.
MR. FEDER: Now what I need to tell you though -- what I need
to tell you though is that the fact of the matter is, that is our process,
and our process is to hopefully get out front with the 20-year solution
in those issues.
But in reality, the answer to the question that Commissioner
Coy Ie so well put out there, and that is important, is how do we have a
sustainable and know that it is?
The answer is that we not allow any more than 186, if this
happens, to come onboard until another improvement comes forward,
and that may well be the ultimate improvement because others may
not be able to make significant enough improvements to come further
onboard.
But here we've got the opportunity to do it, whether it's this group
or somebody else. They're the first one that came, first one coming to
the floor and saying they're ready to make the improvement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But Norm, then next year, just
already those that are already approved and we've used one-seventh of
their development, they're going to just come on next year anyway.
Are those -- do they come to 186?
MR. FEDER: If it's one-seventh. We're finding they're not
building that fast in either of those developments, but we're looking at
that. But, yes, we'll bring on the vested, we'll bring on any other things
that are approved, and then we stop.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So then people don't have the right
to build any more anyway, so they'll have two-sevenths of their
project built, and then they can't have any more because concurrency
is used up; is that correct?
MR. FEDER: What you're saying to me is I've got three glasses
that are full, I've got a fourth glass that flat isn't full, somebody's ready
to fill it. I've got four glasses, but no, I don't have the five, six, and
seven.
Page 195
. _._~''''''''"'--'''''''''^'''-
May 10,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have finished this item. We've
already voted on it. It's bee~ done. You asked for a clarification, Mr.
Y ovanovich. Did you get the clarification or is it still confusing?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm pretty sure I'm confused. I don't
know if I can -- honestly, I've listened. I don't think I have the ability
to fix the problem.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why is that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because first of all, it's going to be your
road. You're ultimately going to -- I don't know. If David tells me,
Rich, you have the ability without having to come back to the Board
to go ahead and fix the problem and I get to build 725 units, I'll be
fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'll tell you what. We'll do this. If
the other Commissioners will support me in this, we'll ask the County
Attorney to give a written opinion to you and to the other three people
involved as to what your alternatives are. Is that okay?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. Because I understand you
want to -- you feel -- correct me if I'm wrong --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That you should have the right to do this.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That I should be able to fix this problem.
And if my only way is to do this developer contribution agreement, I
would hope that maybe we could bring a motion to reconsider so we
can have the final answer for you, Commissioner Coyle, at another
meeting so I don't have to start the process again.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would be happy to do that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't know about the other
commISSIoners.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, you'd have to bring the motion to
reconsider since you were in the majority, and then ':Ve can come back
and have the answer as to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any of the three commissioners could do
Page 196
May 10, 2005
tha t.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It would have to be you, Ms. Fiala --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning or
Commissioner Fiala, right.
CCI~~1MISSIONER FIALA: I'll do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Now, how quickly can we get
this legal interpretation to him, David?
MR. WEIGEL: I would think Friday or Monday.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And if the answer's no, we would have it
on the next agenda, the DCA's again?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, do you Commissioners agree, that
we ought to give him an official notification as to what his rights are
with respect to this item, and if not, let him bring it back for
reconsideration?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is that okay with you? We got
three nods? Okay. Let's do it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We've got to have a motion and
vote.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. We're just giving direction to the
County Attorney.
MR. MUDD: Well, if you're -- if you're saying -- David, you've
got to help me here, because the board's talking about direction to the
county attorney's office, and then there was that other piece that a
particular direction, in the fact that, depending on your decision, they
would come back and reconsider if it wasn't --
MR. WEIGEL: Right.
MR. MUDD: So do they need a motion for that reconsideration?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
MR. WEIGEL: Not at this time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner can ask for it to be
reconsidered. Once he's issued his legal interpretation, if it gives then1
Page 197
'-'
May 10,2005
the right to do what they want -- I think they have the right to do, then
you're okay. If it doesn't give you the right to do what you think you
can do, then one of the three commissioners can ask for it be
reconsidered.
MR. WEIGEL: Right. You have up until six days prior to the
next meeting coming to -- for a Commissioner who voted in the
majority to write a memorandum to the county manager, a memo,
indicating that they wish a motion to reconsider be placed on the
agenda.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sue, could you handle that for me,
please?
MR. WEIGEL: I beg your pardon?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm asking Sue if she would
write that memo for me, please.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, you don't need to do it yet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
MR. WEIGEL: You may not have to do it at all.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
MR. WEIGEL: But we'll stay coordinated as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that going to clarify the issue for you?
MR. YO V ANOVICH: It will. But my question is, we do the --
you bring a motion to reconsider, and that's to decide whether or not to
put it on the agenda again, and I presume we'll say yes. It would be, I
guess, at the June 28th or July meeting that you would actually
consider the developer contribution agreement again, correct?
MR. WEIGEL: That's probably correct because a motion to
reconsider being heard at the next meeting, May 24th, if that motion is
approved, the matter in chief comes back two meetings later. So it
would --
MS. FILSON: June 28th.
MR. WEIGEL: -- be the second meeting in June.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
Page 198
May 10, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. I mean, we'll --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
CCn\/IMISSIONER HALAS: I've just one -- couple of questions
here, just to clarify in my mind. I'm going to need the assistance of
Norm Feder here.
If we have engineering standards and we have to make sure that
the engineering standards are upheld, how it is this going to -- how are
we going to be able to interweave all of this information back to
petitioner, who is now going to have the privilege of building this road
or making road improvements?
MR. FEDER: As part of our right-of-way use permit, we would
require that they submit plans and that we approve the plans and that
they develop according to the plans. It can be done in that manner
\vith a right-of-way permit, hopefully from the state, as well as us.
The issue at hand is they're no longer guaranteed vestings and --
in that that capacity is first come, first serve. That's part of what they
were trying to do through a developer contribution agreement, and we
only have control over a portion of it, but we could try to make sure
through DOT that we have the control over the balance of it in making
sure that the standards are built correctly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We do this all the time.
MR. FEDER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We all -- we're accepting--
MR. FEDER: Yeah, by right-of-way permit, we require them to
build to standards.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have to make sure it solves the
problem and not just --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's over with.
We're do we go now?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we have a time certain --
Page 199
May 10, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to take a break. We're
going to take a 10-minute b~eak.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're back in session.
County Manager, where do we go from here?
Item #8E
RESOLUTION 2005-189: AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF
A LOW INTEREST STATE REVOLVING FUND (SRF) LOAN
APPLICATION TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF THE RECLAIMED WATER AQUIFER STORAGE AND
RECOVERY PROJECT, AND TO ADOPT THE DOCUMENT
CALLED "COLLIER COUNTY AQUIFER STORAGE AND
RECOVERY INTEREST SRF LOAN FOR THIS PROJECT, 74030-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we have a time certain item at four
o'clock. It's 8E. This item to be heard at four.
It's to approve a resolution authorizing the submission of a low
interest state revolving fund SRF loan application to the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection for the construction of the
reclaimed water aquifer storage and recovery project and to adopt the
document called Collier County Aquifer Storage and Recovery
Facilities Plan, March 2005, to allow the county to avail itself of a low
interest SRF loan for this project, which is 74030. And this item will
be presented by Alicia Abbott, Senior Project Manager from Public
Utilities.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much, Ms.
Abbott.
MS. ABBOTT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
Page 200
"". _____,__'u
----.'."
May 10, 2005
I'm Alicia Abbott, Public Utilities Engineering.
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection requires
that a public meeting be held to go through the various aspects of this
project for us to be able to get the loan.
I'd like to introduce Mark Brewer, who's our consultant with
Angie Brewer and Associates, and he's here to guide us through this
public meeting and what is required in this step towards getting this
SRF funding.
MR. BREWER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Mark Brewer, for the record, with Angie Brewer and Associates.
We were involved in putting together the facilities plan and a
capital financing plan that's before you today. Again, the purpose is to
pass the resolution which adopts the plan.
There are a couple of items that we have to go through to make
sure that we meet the public information requirements with regard to
this program.
Essentially a description of the project is, it's a two-phased
approach. Phase one is to put in a pilot well to determine to make sure
-- or determine whether or not the area is suitable. There have been
some primary tests, so there's good indication. If that does prove out,
four additional wells providing sufficient capacity in that area would
be allowed to be put in place.
Essentially, three alternatives were evaluated. One is no action.
That was deemed an ineffective way to deal with the issue because it
would be a lost resource in the reclaimed water not being utilized
beneficially, the construction of the pilot well, \vhich is the project that
I just discussed, along with the four additional wells, and then to put in
place a lined pond or tank farm type option.
The cost of the selected alternative, construction only cost, is
$7.6 million, the next viable option would be the tank farm at $14
million, and the highest cost option would be the -- I'm sorry. I have
that incorrect.
Page 201
May 10, 2005
The pond would be $14 million option, the tank farm would be
$49 million; therefore, it w~s determined to go after the lowest cost
alternative.
The financing that is being put in place is at approximately 3
percent for planning purposes. The -- today's rate for Collier County,
if you were in position to move forward, would be 2.79 percent, which
in terms of how you would normally finance a project through a
conventional bonding on 20-year process, that would be a cost savings
by using the SRF program of $3.6 million, or a more conventional
approach would be a 30-year bond or $8.1 million savings.
Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I just ask a fast question, as
you're talking about financing. Right on the first page here it was
talking about the negotiated fees and so forth, and then you said you
wanted to acquire this SRF loan from FDEP in the amount of
$20,274?
MR. BREWER: I'm sorry. The indication is there, the fees for
preparing the request for inclusion, the loan application and the loan
agreement process would be $20,000 for our firm to conduct those
services. The actual loan amount is going to be about $10.1 million,
which --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought it was going to be a lot
higher, but somehow the way it was reading --
MR. BREWER: You're absolutely right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Just wanted to make sure
that's on the record.
MR. BREWER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. BREWER: The ultimate loan amount, it would be
anticipated at 10.1 million. That covers your const~ction,
contingencies, technical services during construction, essentially any
cost that's foreseeable at this point.
Page 202
._~.,~_..._,",~~.-
May 10, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. BREWER: And ~ssentially that leaves us with -- we're at
the point where you would want to accept public comment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any comments by
COIYlJtl1issi oners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have public speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. We have two public speakers. The first
one is Arnold Bresnick. He will be followed by Fred Tarrant.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Three minutes.
MR. BRESNICK: Thank you for this opportunity to address the
commissioners. My name is Arnold Bresnick. I'm president of the
Carlton Lakes Master Association. I represent 800 homes in Carlton
Lakes.
We immediately border the ASR well field on the eastern edge of
that well field on Livingston Road. That well field is about a half a
mile long, north to south, and about 400 feet east to west. And it's --
on the western border, it's Livingston Road, so it's right up against
Livingston Road, and it's right up against our eastern -- I'm sorry --
our western border fence. So it's Livingston and Carlton Lakes.
And at this time I'd like to thank Joe Cheatham and Alicia
Abbott, because they have briefed us twice. They've come out to
Carlton lakes to talk about the issues that we're facing. However, we
do have concerns about wastewater infusion into the infrastructure
underground, not only in freshwater, but under Carlton Lakes.
We are concerned about disturbance of the structural integrity
underground. And as we all know, there are sink hole issues in the
State of Florida, and there are some very serious issues along those
lines.
We have heard recently that Miami/Dade has had issues of
leakage of wastewater infusion into the freshwater supply, and the
current plan, as I understand it, provides for monitoring in the
Page 203
-~._._.._~-~'''-_. -
May 10,2005
north/south extremities of this well field, but not on the east/west side
because it's too narrow.
I request that this proj ect be delayed for further study, and
discussion and assurance of our homeowners that our concerns are
mitigated.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MR. BRESNICK: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker, Mr. Chairman, is Fred
Tarrant.
MR. TARRANT: Thank you, Commissioners. For the record,
Fred Tarrant, speaking for the taxpayer action group. I now know
how Ronald Reagan felt when he was shot by Hinkley and the
paramedic in the ambulance asked him how he felt, and he said, I'd
rather be in Philadelphia.
And I'm not in Philadelphia, I'm here, and I do appreciate your
courtesy and your patience in hearing me, and I hope you'll cut me a
little slack.
I agree with the previous speaker. I think the people, the good
homeowners at Carlton Lakes, certainly deserve a delay in this process
to give them a better understanding and time to respond.
This time of year people -- most of the people left town, they've
gone all over the country, all over the world.
For years and years, we were told that if the injected material
forms a big bubble down in the ground, and the bubble theory went on
for years and years. That was a safe thing. The bubble was
surrounded by natural water, brackish water. Mr. Coyle and I heard
that when we were on the city council in Naples.
At a permit meeting on September 30th, two oh three, your
consultant, Water Resource Solution, finally revealed the truth, that it
does not form a bubble, and I've got the audio tape. He said it forms an
underground reservoir that can lead into an underground channel.
Can, didn't say would, but said can lead into an underground channel.
Page 204
_._-----,---
May 10, 2005
We know, as the previous speaker said, that there have been
leakage of this type of well ,in the Palm Beach area, in other parts of
Florida, and in Dade County utility district, very serious where the
consultant said there was no possibility of leakage from those injection
wells for over 300 years. Eleven years later they had massive leakage,
and they still don't know how to fix the problem.
This is very incompatible, extremely incompatible to the
homeowner's at Carlton Lakes. It's right on very doorstep. And as Mr.
Coyle knows, because he was involved in this at the time in Naples,
Naples rejected this project on the basis they did not want it close to
the city well fields, and they forced it away by threat of a legal action
and administrative hearing, and it was negotiated with the county, and
the county moved it an additional approximate two miles further from
city well fields, right onto the doorstep of the good people at Carlton
Lakes.
And if you just make a half mile or three-quarter mile circle
around Carlton Lakes, in takes in many other communities, densely
populated, fine residential communities. This is just simply
incompatible and not appropriate.
The county has ASR wells at Manatee Road that are used for
storing water during the wet season. That operation, apparently, has
been quite successful. I think this could, perhaps, be converted to that
use.
I thank you for your time. Please don't do this. Don't be the first
commissioners in the history of Collier County to vote for pumping
treated sewer water containing toilet water into the aquifer. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Mr. Tarrant.
That was the last public speaker?
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Very well.
Any questions or comments by commissioners?
Page 205
May 10, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER lf1\LAS: Y es~ This is a question for our
staff. I believe the water that's injected in these ASR wells are class
two water; is that correct? In other words, it's almost to the point
where it's -- you could just recycle it and use it over again; is that
correct?
MR. CHEATHAM: Yes, sir. For the record, Joseph Cheatham,
Wastewater Director.
The water that we've put in the ASR wells meets primary and
secondary drinking water standards. It's a highly treated effluent from
our wastewater treatment plants, our water reclamation facilities, and
meets very stringent standards that we comply with. This water is
reused throughout the county for reuse, and in some areas of the
country, it does go into potable drinking water, aquifers out west in
California.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any other questions? Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Cheatham, the well that will
we have in Manatee, what kind of water sources that we're storing in
ASR?
MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony, Public Utilities
Administrator. Sir, the Manatee ASR is a potable water ASR,
whereby we take potable water and we inject it and recover it back
through the system for sale -- resale as potable water, as opposed to
this particular ASR, which we'll take treated effluent from our
reclamation plants, and then we will recover it as irrigation water for
irrigation customers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any problem with that
well? It's the same density. I mean, you're talking -~
MR. DeLONY: Sir, we haven't had any issues at all on the
Manatee well, if that's your question.
Page 206
May 10, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it -- there any difference
between reused and potable as far as what it can do and cannot do to
the conti'nement area?
MR. DeLONY: No, sir. In my opinion, there is absolutely no
diffì~rence with regard to its operation and effect that it would have on
the aquifer.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it does create a bubble,
right?
MR. DeLONY: Sir, we believe that if it goes into a confined
aquifer and it stays in that confined aquifer with no harm, and the
resource agencies that are responsible, along with us, with regard to
this particular permits and the actions associated with that concur with
that conclusion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Could this water -- when it's
brought back up as it's stored now, it's like reclaimed water. Can it be
brought up and used as potable water? I mean, all you need to do is
send it through one more process?
MR. DeLONY: In theory, yes, ma'am. We have not chosen to
take that alternative in Collier County. We have decided that we
would take this resource and use it as a supplement to our irrigation
system and to use it for reclaimed water for irrigation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But it can go the final --
MR. DeLONY: There are places that I'm not told -- I have not
visited them personally, not have I ever reviewed the permitting
document, out in the west coast area particularly where they do
exactly what you suggest.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I ask you, when it's put down
into the ground, does it have bacteria and stuff in it that could be
dangerous?
MR. DeLONY: No, ma'am. That's one of the critical
Page 207
~'"----""--
May 10,2005
components of the permit is that we cannot put anything but compliant
waters into that -- into that ':lquifer, or any aquifer in that regard.
Highly tested, highly structured, and very, very controlled. Lots of
reporting, a lot of things that make sure that nothing's going to happen
that you've described in your question to me, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see. So let me make just make
sure I understood what you just said. So it's monitored continuously
to make sure that when you inject this there aren't -- there is no
bacteria in there; is that correct?
MR. DeLONY: There is going to be nothing that's going to
cause harm, as we know it, to the aquifer or any of the environments.
The water that we inject is the same water that we distribute currently
to all of our irrigation customers when we place it on the golf course,
the medians, and other areas of the county and distribute it into -- in
the product that matter. It's the same project, the same water same
water with the same quality and same characteristics.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And one last question. Have
sink ho les ever occurred that you know of in Florida because of
ASRs?
MR. DeLONY: No, ma'am, not to my knowledge.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. One thing I'd like to remind the
commissioners is that this item is merely an item to approve a low
interest loan. It isn't an approval of the ASR. The ASR has already
been approved, and I think you have that approval.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, I do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've already started work, right?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, I have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So this is a proposal that will
save the taxpayers anywhere from 3.6 to 8.1 million dollars in interest
over a 20- or 30-year time frame; is that not correct?,
MR. DeLONY: That's correct, sir. We utilize to the maximum
extent possible, for all of our water resource projects, both in the water
Page 208
___.".._.__,__.-.".n.··
May 10, 2005
and the wastewater utility the state revolving fund program whereby
we're able to access relatively inexpensive loans from the state for
these purposes. They're highly qualifying and you must meet some
pretty stringent requirements to obtain them, but the success that we've
had in getting those has been extraordinary, and, therefore, our rate
payers have saved extraordinary amounts of money as we build out
this infrastructure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Any other questions by commissioners?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion?
I'll close the public hearing.
And, now, is there amotion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion for approval of
this bond issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Halas for
approval, second by Commissioner Fiala.
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: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous.
Thank you very much.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you, Commissioners.
Page 209
May 10,2005
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 2005-190/ CWS RESOLUTION 2005-02:
AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY CONDEMNATION OF
NON-EXCLUSIVE, PERPETUAL UTILITY AND
MAINTENANCE EASEMENTS, TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
EASEMENTS, AND ACCESS EASEMENTS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SEWER FORCE MAIN, RAW WATER
MAINS AND WELL SITES REQUIRED FOR THE SOUTH
COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT (SCRWTP)
REVERSE OSMOSIS WELLFIELD EXPANSION TO 20MGD,
PROJECT NUMBER 708921, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED
$3.050.000 - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 10C, and
that's a recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the
acquisition by condemnation of non-exclusive perpetual utility and
maintenance easements, temporary construction easements, and access
easements for the construction of a sewer force main, a raw water
main, and water sites required for the South County Regional Water
Treatment Plant reverse osmosis well field expansion to 20 million
gallons per day.
It's project 708921 at a cost not to exceed $3,050,000, and Mr.
Phil Gramatges from Public Utilities Division -- and I hope I
pronounced your last name correctly.
MR. GRAMATGES: Gramatges, sir.
MR. MUDD: Okay -- will present.
MR. GRAMATGES: For the record--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Phil G.
MR. GRAMATGES: Phil G. Thank you, Commissioners. My
name is Phil Gramatges, Principal Project Manager, Public Utilities
Page 210
-><»,-_._,---_..
May 10,2005
Engineering.
This item you have se~n before. On January the 11 th you
approved a condemnation resolution that allowed us to proceed with
the acquisitions necessary for this well field.
At your direction we have had discussions with several property
owners in the area and we have also began our conversations with the
regulatory agencies, and we have learned a number of things that now
prompt us to come back and ask for some changes in the locations of
some of the wells that we have to put in place for the well field.
I will, in a minute, introduce a second speaker, but I'd like to tell
you that we -- we will conclude our presentation with a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, having
reviewed alternative locations, environmental factors, cost variables,
safety and welfare considerations as they relate to the construction of
the proj ect, find that the most feasible location for the utility
improvements for the construction of this proj ect is as shown on
Exhibit A of the attached resolution.
At this point I'd like to introduce Mr. Michael Pikula. He is an
executive with Greeley and Hansen, LLC, who is the engineer of
record for this project, and will go into some detail as to the changes
that we propose.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any -- we have a motion to
approve by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Is there any other discussion?
Is there something you need to get on the record?
MS. CHADWELL: Yes, sir, there is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. CHADWELL: Ellen Chadwell, Assistant County Attorney.
If we could indulge them, to allow them to make a five-minute
presentation, please.
Page 211
.-.-------..,-........--. ~
May 10, 2005
MR. PIKULA: Mike Pikula with Greeley and Hansen, for the
record.
This project was identified in the 2003 master plan as providing
capacity for the 12 MGD upgrade of the south county wastewater
plant -- water treatment plant, excuse me, and to provide improved
pressure quality and quantity. It involves 23 wells for production
capacity and reliability.
Testing results in the area were favorable for the project. The
route study that was done was defined by the hydro geologic body --
hydro geologic study boundary and natural and man-made features,
and also had the other considerations that you see here.
The overall factors included alternatives, cost, environmental
impact, long-range planning, and safety.
There were three alternatives that were considered, as you see
here. Environmental was an important aspect. The existing and
proposed environmental conservation areas were considered and field
observation was conducted.
Public input was considered. And generally the environmental
impacts were minimized by using existing linear corridors.
Long-range planning was considered as shown on the projects that
you see on the exhibit.
Cost criteria was considered having to do with pipeline link,
property acquisition, road restoration pennitting, also a number of
non-cost criteria, including public inconvenience, safety, number of
road crossings, geotechnical considerations, operation and
maintenance availability, and the other items that you see on the slide.
Of the three alternatives shown in the 2002 cost there, alternative
one had the lowest cost and the highest non-cost criteria score. And
for that reason, that low cost alternative -- alternative one was
recommended, and it had also the highest non-cost ~riteria score.
Based on those items, we've made a recommendation in January
11 th, 2005, for that route and that -- Board of County Commissioners
Page 212
_.__.. ~_~.....>o~...,......,.__,___"___",,
May 10,2005
approved the alignment and the property condemnation but also
directed staff to go talk to property owners to address concerns that
were raised.
Staff has done that work, and refinements to the approved
alignment are proposed. Those include wellsites that have been
moved to other locations within property owner's property and also
wells that were either directly or indirectly impacted by an existing
environmental resource permit. Those were moved to the
county-owned Henderson Creek Canal right-of-way, and wells -- three
wells were moved to increase access -- future maintenance access for
operations.
The proposed refinements, minimize cost associated with owner's
future development plans, they avoid potential schedule delays, and
they have fewer impacts to private property, they also have less
environmental impacts and provide the ability to accelerate well
construction in county-owned right-of-way, and provide improved
maintenance access.
The proj ect team has met with property owners as directed by the
Board of County Commissioners. The proposed refinements avoid
potential permitting delays and provide reduced property -- private
property impacts, and the proj ect team recommends proposed
refinements to the approved route.
And I'd like to turn it back over to Mr. Gramatges.
MR. GRAMATGES: Questions?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion on the floor
and a second.
Is there any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 213
May 10, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous.
Thank you very much, Phil.
MR. GRAMATGES: Thank you very much, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me say why it was so easy, just
in case anybody ever is wondering, because we all went out to see the
site and they showed and they answered questions. We've done a lot
of background work before we came today. Just in case anybody's
wondering why we -- why we do so easily what we were doing.
MR. GRAMATGES: That's absolutely correct, ma'am. We have
done a lot of talking.
Item #10D
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT
FOR $2,000,000 TO PAY THE AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE
ADMINISTRATION FOR THE COUNTY'S SHARE OF
MEDICAID BILLING FOR A PERIOD OF FY 00 THROUGH FY
05 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 10D. It's a
recommendation to approve a budget amendment for $2 million to pay
the Agency for Health Care Administration for the county's share of
Medicaid billing for a period of fiscal year '00 through FY-'05, and
Ms. Marla Ramsey, from Public Services Administration Division,
will present. Well, excuse me. Mr. Barry Williams, from Social
Services, will present.
MR. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Barry
Page 214
-."..-.--,.,.--
May 10, 2005
Williams, for the record, Human Services Director.
I'll be brief with the issue. Just to let you know that we're asking
for the amount of money to cover the expenses the county has
incurred from fiscal year 2000 through 2005, and it relates to Statute
409.915, and that statute basically requires the county to pay 35
percent of the total costs of what the Agency for Health Care
Administration pays for Medicaid recipients for residents of Collier
County for their hospitalization through day 11 through 45. It's an
obligation the county has to pay that portion of the Medicaid.
Just as an explanation of why we're here at this point. We
historically receive bills from the Agency for Health Care
Administration and as we scrutinize the bills, what we've done in the
past is we've looked at the daily rates that they provide us. And if
those rates differ from the source documentation that we have, we've
deleted those amounts.
And recently we've had a series of meetings with AHCA, our
department staff, county attorney's office, clerk of courts, and
developed an understanding from AHCA of how those bills should be
processed that's differently from what our past experiences have been.
So this change in processing will significantly change the amount
that we have traditionally budgeted. And this period of time that is --
that we're looking at is basically this five-year period where bills that
we had gotten, we've deleted, sent them back, asked to be rebilled.
And they sent some of them to us, but now these are -- these have
accumulated to this amount that we're asking for this additional
money.
This budget amendment will allow us to meet this current
obligation as well as previously deleted items that will carry us
through the end of the fiscal year.
So I'll stop there and just see if you have questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any questions by commissioners?
(No response.)
Page 215
May 10, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No public speakers, right?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Questions?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm just waiting for you to bash
the legislators.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I could do that. Do you want to
take the time for me to do that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. It's getting kind of old.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it's also informative for people
who care.
But you want to talk about why the -- the state has billed us for
more money? I mean, is that what you want to talk about? Is that
what you had in mind?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Motion to approve.
MR. WILLIAMS: It is an unfunded--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning has just --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- had a motion to approve, and I'll
second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And Commissioner Halas has a
question. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Basically what's happened is, as
you turned this back, the state, for some reason or another, said we're
going to -- this is basically an unfunded mandate back to us, and now
we've got to prove without a shadow of a doubt that some of these are
unfounded charges, but we still have to go ahead and pay the state,
and then we go through the litigation or some type of mediation in
regards to seeing if we can get some of this money back; is this my
understanding?
MR. WILLIAMS: It is an unfunded mandate the state has given
to the counties to pay for a portion of Medicaid.
When we scrutinize the bills, we delete for several reasons. We'll
Page 216
May 10, 2005
delete if we can't determine that the person is a Collier County
resident, if they have a P.O. box. What the state is saying in terms of
these charges, they will provide adjustments to us. Ifwe get a bill and
the rate's different, the next month they'll provide an adjustment that
will reflect that difference.
MR. MUDD: But we have to pay it first.
MR. WILLIAMS: We have to pay it first, correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what I'm saying, we have to
pay it first.
And so this is -- and now we're going to have another -- I know
this isn't part of the -- part of the issue, but we have another unfunded
mandate coming down to us, and that's on rural workers or rural areas.
I believe there's -- there was some legislation passed in regards to
that, so we're going to have -- that's something else now that's going to
be passed on to the county.
MR. MUDD: Sir, that could be. I read it in the paper. We're
still sorting out through all the bills.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala for
approval.
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: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
Page 217
May 10,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The only reason I'm voting on this
is because we really don't have an option.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nope, we don't.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We don't.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We don't have an option, so--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just take it out of your cigarette
tax.
Item #10E
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE RELEASE OF EIGHT (8)
CIVIL JUDGMENTS ISSUED FOR LITTER AGAINST BRUCE
REED SCHWARTZ, DECEASED, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$4.000.00- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Next item is 10E, and that used to be 16C3, and
that is a recommendation to approve release of eight civil judgments
issued for litter against Bruce Reed Schwartz, deceased, in the amount
of $4,000. Fiscal impact is approximately $148 to record the eight
judgments. And Mr. John Y onkowsky from Public Utilities Division
will present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning had pulled this.
Can we just answer Commissioner Henning's questions?
MR. YONKOWSKY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- it's my understanding this
is a lien on a property, and why would we want to take a lien off of the
property since the property has more -- I mean, it just sold three years
ago for 200,000?
MR. YONKOWSKY: Commissioner Henning--
Commissioners, for the record, my name is John Y onkowsky. The
Page 218
..-.-.--.---
May 10, 2005
lien is actually a judgment, and we did not have a lien against the
property .
And when the gentleman died, or is now deceased, there was not
enough money left in the assets to probate for us to realize our money,
and that's basically why this request is here before the commissioners.
There were actually eight liens -- or eight violations for litter in
2001. And in 2003, we began to process the conversion of those liens
because Mr. Schwartz did not respond to our request to pay the litter
citations.
We attempted to and did convert them into judgments, and the
judgments were recorded. And in the interim, Mr. Schwartz had
passed on. And we did not have at that time a viable process to
convert those citations, those judgments, into actual liens on the
property .
And that process -- Ms. Belpedio is here to give you an overview
of how that process works. But before I turn it over to Ms. Belpedio,
the liens, or the litter citations, there were four and of -- at one level
and four at another for a total of $1,440. Those were the actual dollar
values of the outstanding litter citations.
When they became judgments, the maximum judgment for
something of this nature in the government is $500. So the eight liens
then became eight judgments for a value of $4,000. And--
MS. BELPEDIO: Jennifer Belpedio, Assistant County Attorney.
John is correct in that without additional action being taken, the civil
judgments are not attached and are not liens on the property. That is
true that the property has been sold.
To address Commissioner Henning's question, what you should
know is that we presently have the special master process, which is
being used in lieu of the prosecution in county court, so we won't have
these issues in the future. You're correct in that there are liens that
arise, and it's out of code enforcement board cases and out of special
master cases.
Page 219
------,-
May 10,2005
So I hope that provides you with the information you need.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it sounds -- well, the issue
was on the property, and now I understand the process. The process
that we're doing know, that won't happen in the future and we can
collect our money when the property is sold or there's a mortgage on
it.
MS. BELPEDIO: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I'll make a motion to
approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta.
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: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous.
Item #10F
A MODIFICATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,345.90 TO
PURCHASE ORDER #4500038389 WITH NEWSPAPER
PRINTING COMPANY, INC. FOR PRINTING OF THE
RECREATION GUIDE - APPROVED
Page 220
... , .'-"~"""-"-'
May 10, 2005
MR. MUDD: The next item is 1 OF, and that's 16D2, and that's to
approve a modification in the amount of$9,345.90 to purchase order
number 4500038389 with Newspaper Printing Company, Inc., for
printing of the recreation guide, and Ms. Marla Ramsey, the
Administrator for Public Services Division, will present. This was
brought forward by Commissioner Henning.
MS. RAMSEY: I really came up to address any issue that
Commissioner Henning has.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. You know, Marla and I
spoke about this, but I still feel very uncomfortable approving -- now
what I know the vendor will be getting 14 hundred and -- $14,300 for
printing four extra pages within the parks and rec. guide and
distributing four thou -- 5,000 more. And if they -- if they went with
50,000 publications with 52 pages, it costs less than what we're
actually inserting in the publication, so he's getting an extra amount.
MS. RAMSEY: Let me help you a little bit more. Marla
Ramsey, for the record, Administrator of Public Services.
I have a little bit more detail. The cost of the run for the rec.
guide this last time was $13,581.90. It is 60 pages in depth. We
printed 45,000 copies. We originally opened a P.o. for $20,000. Our
first run ran around $15,000.
So we're asking for additional $9,000 to payout the second run
on that, which is -- and the reason for the dialogue in the executive
summary, which we understand is confusing -- I have addressed that
issue -- is that we're -- we should have opened the P.O. probably back
in January. Staff made a mistake on that and did not. And so we're
before you today with a purchase price for 13,581. We have a P.O.
for 4,227 in existence, and the difference is 9,000 or so dollars.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So it is back to $9,000
and some change? So -- and we're doing a 60-page?
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. It's a 60-page rec. guide, and we
Page 221
May 10,2005
printed 45,000 copies.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, that isn't what the
executive summary says.
MS. RAMSEY: It says that to some degree, but because there's
so many options on that quote sheet, it is very confusing, and we will
rectify that in the future. As a matter of fact, what we will be doing is
putting this out to bid and will open the blanket P.O. for the full
amount in the future.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay . Well, we're getting our
value then.
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I'm going to make a motion
to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Halas.
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: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's unanimous.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, this brings us to public comments
on general topics.
Ms. Filson, do we have any speakers?
Page 222
May 10,2005
MS. FILSON: We have no speakers.
Item #15
ST AFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to staff and
commissioner general communication on paragraph 15.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How about County Attorney's report?
Anything from County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: County Attorney's has reported.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. That's enough of that, I
guess, right.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this is just an update. Right now
we, as a staff, as participating in the 311 statewide activities. 311 is the
phone number that, if we choose in the future to put that capability on
our net where somebody could call Collier County government -- and
from a series of operators, get any questions or any information that
they want -- and they don't have to remember all the different phone
numbers.
It's kind of like 911 but it's not for an emergency. It's just to
contact government. We haven't -- we haven't come forward with a
recommendation to choose one way or the other. We want to -- there's
one county or two counties that have it in Florida.
There is a statewide task force that's been assembled to talk about
that. We're engaged with that with our staff, with Ms. Len Price and
with John Torre and Barry Axelrod.
You're going to get a letter from the state to talk about this, about
this coalition planning, and I just wanted to give you an update. If you
get the letter, you'll know what we're talking about, okay,
Page 223
May 10, 2005
We're in conversations to find out if there's a better way to do it
and to get the best business practices out of the folks that have already
engaged in this particular practice.
Next item is, I was informed by the chairman that he is not going
to be available tomorrow for the CRA pitch and the LDC meeting. I
just want to make sure the rest of the board members know that.
And that's all I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to -- last few meetings
we have heard how -- what a terrible job the legislatures have done,
and I just wanted to know, Commissioner Coyle, if I commit to a $500
donation to your campaign, would you reconsider running for
legislation?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, absolutely not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I might be able to convince
my wife to take out of her working funds, out of her personal account.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I appreciate your offer, but the
more I know about what goes on in Tallahassee, the less I want to
have anything to do with it, so don't get me started again.
Maybe a thousand dollars might work.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I could do that legally. In my
legal means, how's that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Five hundred dollars for you and your
wife.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A thousand between the two of
us.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. We're just joking, folks.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have nothing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I have something.
I need to make the other Commissioners aware and the County
Page 224
May 10, 2005
Attorney aware of a conversation that I had with Dr. Richard Binge
from the Vanderbilt Beach. He has made a proposal to us, and I think
it's at least worthy of consideration.
He believes that we could be better represented in our legal suit
with respect to Vanderbilt Hotel or Inn if we hired Mr. Pelham, and he
and/or his organization would be happy to share legal expenses on
that. He didn't say what percentage.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Heard that before.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Didn't say what percentage, but at
least he offered to work out some kind of sharing process.
So my point in bringing this up is to say, what can we do to make
sure we get the best possible legal representation we can get at the
lowest cost to the taxpayers?
So I'm bringing this up and asking the Commissioners if they are
interested in evaluating this. I know -- I do not know a lot about Mr.
Pelham other than the fact that he was involved in writing the Bert
Harris Act and was also a member -- a head of DCA at one point in
time.
I cannot weigh the strengths and weaknesses of Mr. Pelham and
our current attorney who's working on this, so I am bringing it to the
attention of the commissioners to see if they think it is worthwhile to
provide guidance to the county attorney to give us a report on how we
could best be represented between these two these two attorneys. So
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- what do you think? Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. It's interesting that you bring
that up. When I was talking to some of the people down at Vanderbilt
-- oh, they were in my office a few months ago yet. And I suggested
also that we ought to be contacting Mr. Pelham, and it was a complete
surprise to them that I would be thinking this way, because here, that
was something they thought.
Page 225
May 10,200'5
But I thought as long as you -- as long as you want to be
represented, might as well go to the guy who wrote the rules, not only
that, but then served as far, as the state goes, in keeping those rules in
place and making sure that they function well for the whole state
through the DCA. So I think it's a great idea.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would go along with that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, I don't want to get involved
in selecting an attorney. I'm merely saying that we ask the County
Attorney to look at the situation and advise us as to why we should or
should not do this; is that okay?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yep.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I've got three nods? Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Four nods.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I said something tongue and
cheek, and I'm going to say it in the microphone. These same people
have stated they would help us on another lawsuit --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and, in turn, sued us.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, really?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. So, you know, no money
forthcoming, and we end up losing that case and they end up losing
their case. So I have --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Was it the same lawyer?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But they did promise to help us
defend with funding, and they said that before. And you --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think maybe we ought to consider
some kind of written agreement in this case, huh?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yep.
Page 226
May 10, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ifwe do that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. We don't even know how
much. They might be thinking about a thousand dollars, okay. I don't
have the slightest idea.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would think it would be more
than a thousand dollars.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would hope so.
So anyway, David, you've got the sense of our guidance?
MR. WEIGEL: I believe I do. With your authorization, I'll
engage Dr. Binge to flesh this out so that I can report back to you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
MR. WEIGEL: Also, obviously, since we are under threat of
litigation right now on this matter and do have counsel engaged, I will
talk with counsel as well. And we're very familiar with Tom Pelham,
Attorney Tom Pelham. And I think it was attorney from his law firm
that spoke at a recent hearing, in fact, down here, So we're -- I do have
some knowledge of what they're up to and what they're doing.
Of course, I've met with Dr. Binge and his assistants from that
area as well relating to this. So I look forward to provide you the best
report as to the best representation that you can have at the best cost,
but I will not certainly tell you that if you can hire someone more
cheaply that I can guarantee a result with another attorney as opposed
to the current attorney we have or vice versa.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep.
MR. WEIGEL: Ultimately those are decisions made by judges in
courts.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you very much.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. It's been a very
interesting day. Personally, I'm glad it's over with.
Page 227
, .<~_._--_._-"'>~->,. '""
May 10, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Me, too.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But the only comment I got is
that I believe that when we have problems or perceived problems, that
we need to face them head on, we need to be informed, to be able to
understand what's taking place.
And in that light, I'd like to see if the next meeting, if we might
be able to see if our legislative delegation is available to give a
personal report to us of where we are, where we're going, and so we
have a better understanding of where we stand as far as the impact
fees go and other growth issues.
And we might be able to inspire them to do some extra things for
us.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think there's a legislative
luncheon, too.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There is. I can't -- we've got a
conflict on it. We've got a meeting that day.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Board day, right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, Thursday.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I, for one, would be very happy to
have our legislators come in and brief us on what's going to, what they
have in mind and what they have planned. But I don't think that
process is complete until we get ourselves at least one, maybe two,
lobbyists in Tallahassee who can keep abreast of things up there, and
make sure we are properly informed.
I hope they'll discuss that --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what I can do is I can try to get
with all involved and try set up some kind of a workshop meeting or
whatever where we could get down and talk about those particular
issues and try to get that done by the end of June, okay, and try to fit it
in there in some particular mode, because you've got budgets coming
up in the middle of June, you've got a 7 June reading of San Marino
and the annual report to Collier County.
Page 228
May 10, 2005
MS. FILSON: And the Value Adjustment Board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, tell me something. Why do we
even want to do it at that point in time? Why don't we try to do it a
little closer to, say, September or October?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll tell you why.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Because of what we went
through here today. When we're looking at that bogeyman in the
closet and we're not doing -- we're using that as a reason not to be able
to go forward on issues. That's why I want to get them in here as soon
as possible so we can start to deal with facts rather than what may be
fiction. I don't know where we stand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute. The law is the law. The
law was passed. The fact that we have a discussion with them doesn't
change the law, because they're not going to be in session again until
next year. So whatever it is they passed this past session, we're going
to have to deal with end of session next year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But we're better dealing off--
dealing with them right in this room and talking to them one on one
rather than speculating on what's happening.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't think there's any speculation. I
think we know what's happening. You know what's happening, don't
you?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
MR. MUDD: I've mentioned to you about the growth
management and the compo plan change that we'll have to put in
December 2006.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: And we will have to have -- based on the law, we
will have to have a proportionate share option in that particular item.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So then your recommendation,
Commissioner Coyle, is that we exclude our legislative people from
Page 229
May 10, 2005
any process that this county does, that we don't bring them in there
and we don't walk to them? We don't try to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, give me a break.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm sorry, but this is the
way I'm hearing it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We meet with them every year and we
met with them this year. And the time to meet with them is when they
know what's going to be happening in the legislature.
Do you want a post legislative briefing; is that what you want?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What I would like to do is bring
our legislative delegations in here, just to be able to talk to us and be
able to tell us how we can best approach this problem. They're the
people that are at the -- up there in Tallahassee trying to do the right
thing, and we want to make sure that we understand what they're
doing and what we can do to have a better understanding of it. This is
the educational process of the whole thing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You know, I am not going to sit up here
and scratch somebody's back to make them feel good, okay? Now,
they didn't do the right thing, and that's why I'm upset about it.
Now, I'd be happy to have them come here and I'll tell them they
didn't do the right thing, and I'll keep telling them that until we get this
growth management issue straightened out. We're not going to solve
anything by trying to protect our buddies. Buddies require straight
talk. If you're unhappy with them, you don't like what they did, then
tell them.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And wouldn't it be great if our
buddies were right here in the front aisle and we could talk to them?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Get them up here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Great. That's all I'm asking for.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They were sitting right across the table
from our delegation in Tallahassee and we talked to them, they were
sitting right across the table at dinner when we talked to them, okay?
Page 230
.__N__~_··_,···_,·,"'····_'''··_"·__·M_'_'___·_
May 10, 2005
Now, we've still got the same problem.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But you have five
commissioners, you have television coverage, you've got an audience.
I think that this is the place to do it, and right in front of the public to
be able to deal with any kind of problems that we may have, just to get
it out in the open. Invite our lobbyists, too, at the same time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We got it out in the open by putting a
full-page ad in the newspaper. Everybody knows what went wrong.
They know what happened. So there's nothing our delegation can do
about it between now and next session that I know of. They're not
going to be -- unless they're called into special session, so, yeah, we
can talk to them. Let's talk to them, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Great, thank you. That's all I'm
asking.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Talking never hurts.
MR. MUDD: So Commissioners, let's set up a workshop
between now and the end of June and try to get a mutual date for
everybody to be there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Please.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And what is our objective going to be?
Are we going to get a post legislative update on what they've done, or
are we going to try to solve the growth management bill problem?
MR. MUDD: Let's try to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think there's a big
misunderstanding about the growth management bill. And, you know,
I talked to secretary of DEP, secretary of community development and
shared the same feelings and fears that all of us have, and I was
assured that it isn't the legislation that's going through and the goal of
the governor and what he wants.
And, you know, the bill hasn't even been signed by the governor,
but I think there's a lot of fear. And the goal is, is exactly what you
Page 23 1
"--_.~-_.,-_."-"....-.-,, --
May 10,2005
want, Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Halas, and all of us
want in the public, is to make sure the infrastructure is put in first.
Now, we need to understand how that process is going to happen.
There is money involved in it, there is -- there has to be a
commitment from development and the Board of Commissioners in
this case.
So I think we truly need to understand. I mean, examples of,
well, we can't be tighter than the rule. That isn't what the secretary of
DCA told me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We can be tighter, but yet,
there's all these fears of that legislation. And I think it would be good
to truly understand what it means. And maybe it's not the legislators.
Maybe it is somebody within the staff of DCA or in the governor's
office, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Should we invite the DCA and the
secretary --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the governor?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, we need to
understand what -- where we're going with this, what's wrong with
these bills, if there is anything wrong, and what the fixes are in the
coming legislation, and that would give us the ability to lobby our
delegation to do what's best for Collier County.
And I have heard nothing but good things. Collier County is
ahead of any of the other counties on what this bill means. This bill
says Collier County because they have done it right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it doesn't really, you know. And I
have not read the latest version, but I have read the bills that preceded
it, and I can tell you there are serious problems about them, and I can
also tell you, they don't come anywhere near addressing growth
management issues and they don't achieve concurrency. As a matter
of fact, they prohibit us from achieving concurrency.
Page 232
.-- ,~~.....__ f' I
May 10, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The one thing it doesn't address
is environmental resources. It addresses concurrency issues about
the schools, roads, water/sewer. Water resources it addresses, but it
doesn't address environmental issues. So it doesn't mean that we can't
do more.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it doesn't address concurrency. But
you have -- you have something to say, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I think what concerns me is
the fact that we have a part-time legislator, legislation, here in the
State of Florida, and I think that we have some real pressing needs to
have a legislative session that is in session longer than two months.
And I really feel that in order to get the work done and get it
done properly, that that's something that, I think, needs to be
addressed by people that are up in Tallahassee and that is, that they
stay in session longer and, of course, be compensated for it.
What concerns me is when they have a legislative session, and in
the last waning hours of being there in Tallahassee, there are so many
things that are being added and subtracted, amended, detracted from
the bills, that I don't think true justice is being done for all the citizens
of Florida, and I really believe that we need -- that cool heads need to
prevail, that you can't continually add amendments and add additions
to the bill and get it done properly. That's my biggest concern.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, I don't know if
you had a chance to meet Carrie Roth, but Carrie used to work for
DCA. She wrote some of the language. She's an attorney working for
a private firm now and actually is a lobbyist in Tallahassee. She has
great knowledge of this -- this particular bill. And I don't know if you
want me to contact her and see what depth that she knows and get her
down to inform the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd love to hear what you find
out. If you've got -- Commissioner Henning, if you've got an inside
line to this person --
Page 233
- "","~"",,,,,,,"--,-_...__.,,.....,--_..".,,. ,.-
May 10, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we all have an inside line
to availability anyway.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think, you know, you have to be
realistic about this. Commissioner Halas is right. We went to
Tallahassee. We picked up a bill on Tuesday. By the time we got
back here into the office I think it had changed -- they had prepared
another strike-all, which is a -- is something committees produced by
essentially rewriting the whole thing.
I spent the weekend reviewing that one and called members of
our legislature about concerns about that on Monday, and by that time
another version had been written, and by that time, we got a copy of
1 72 pages of a bill that was going to be submitted, and it was
submitted and, perhaps, approved, perhaps, not approved, but the
difference is we're going to be solved by, quote, leadership, unquote,
in closed session.
There was no public debate. There was no way to find out what
those differences were. It finally was passed. And to this day, we do
not know, until just recently when you apparently found out, what
really did pass.
And so it's not a process that's conducive to good legislation.
And if we can sit down and talk with legislators and do anything about
it, I'll be happy to do that. I'm not going to keep my hopes up, because
I don't think they can control it.
I just -- I think our legislators are working within the system to
try to get things done, and the system doesn't work. And I can give
you -- my personal opinion is that whoever wrote that garbage doesn't
know the slightest thing about growth management at the local level,
and it should never have merited consideration by the legislature in the
first place. But nevertheless, I won't get started.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm glad I brought it up, you
know. It's been a very interesting discussion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Page 234
May 10, 2005
MR. MUDD: Did Commissioner Halas get --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Anything else?
MR. MUDD: Did Commissioner Halas get his say?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, he did.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've one other thing I'd just like to
bring in. I'd like to say that staff did a great job, and this is all black
and white and it's fantastic. And if anybody hasn't seen the annual
report, it's something worthwhile, and I want to say that everyone that
was involved in this effort, they need to be commended. It was very
well done, very professionally done. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's almost as good as the sheriffs report.
MR. MUDD: We have the sheriff in there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I haven't seen the report.
MR. MUDD: All the constitutionals are in that particular -- for
the first, we've got everybody in there, and I think we've got the whole
county .
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The only thing that's missing is
gold leaf.
MR. MUDD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We are adjourned.
* * * * * Commissioner Halas moved, seconded by Commissioner
Coyle and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16Al
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF" GRAND LEL Y DRIVE,
PHASE TWO", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY- W/STIPULATIONS
Page 235
May 10, 2005
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 2005-177: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "TERRACINA AT THE
VINEYARDS". THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED.
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 2005-178: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "JUBILATION". THE ROADWAY
AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIVATELY
MAINTAINED.
Item #16A4
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "BLACK BEAR RIDGE -
PHASE I", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A5
RESOLUTION 2005-179: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "GREY OAKS UNIT FOURTEEN".
THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED.
Page 236
May 10, 2005
Item #16A6
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "VALENCIA LAKES
PHASE 7-A", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY - W /STIPULA TIONS
Item #16A 7
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH JOHN S.
AND ALBERTA R. FALLOWFIELD FOR 1.14 ACRE UNDER
THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION
PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $37,850 - LAND IS
LOCATED WITHIN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT 65
(WINCHESTER HEAD MULTI-PARCEL PROJECT).
Item #16A8
THE NAMING OF FOUR (4) ACQUIRED CONSERVATION
COLLIER PRESERVES - RAILHEAD SCRUB PRESERVE,
OTTER MOUND PRESERVE, COCOHATCHEE CREEK
PRESERVE AND RED MAPLE SWAMP PRESERVE.
Item #16A9
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "A VIANO AT NAPLES",
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY-
W/STIPULATIONS
Page 237
May 10, 2005
Item #16A10
REFUNDING THE $1,000 CONTINUANCE FEES PAID BY
TABERNACLE OF BETHLEHEM CHURCH FOR PETITIONS
CU-2003-AR-4326 AND V A-2003-AR-4327, DIEUDONNE AND
LUNIE BRUTUS, PETITIONERS, REPRESENTED BY RONALD
F. NINO, AICP, OF VANASSE DAYLOR WHEN THE PETITION
WAS CONTINUED BY THE PETITIONER FROM A MARCH 8,
2005 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HEARING DATE
TO MARCH 22, 2005 - APPLICANT IS A NON-PROFIT
ORGANIZATION AND HAS EXTREMELY LIMITED
FINANCIAL RESOURCES.
Item #16A11
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "II REGALO",
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROV AL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY -
W/STIPULA TIONS
Item #16A12
RELEASE AND SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR THE
FOLLOWING CASES: GLADYS RODRIQUEZ, 2000-027;
HELEN STORMER, 2004-071; KEITH T. HECKMAN, 2004-74;
BARBARA GALLOWAY, 2003-035; BARBARA GALLOWAY,
2002-393; BARBARA GALLOWAY, 99-029; BARBARA
GALLOWAY, 2002-394; BARBARA GALLOWAY, 2003-385;
BARBARA GALLOWAY, 2003-445; ERIK H. & ASTRID V.
SEFFER,2581; STEVE RIAMBAU & GILDETE DASILVA, 2567;
Page 238
May 10,2005
OLGA HIRSHHORN & THOMAS G. SCHESSLER, 2223; OLGA
HIRSHHORN & THOMAS G. SCHESSLER, 2351; AURORA
BROS., 1917; AURORA BROS., 2275; DOUGLAS & SANDRA
CARTER, 40328-018; AURORA BROS., 2383; DOUGLAS &
SANDRA CARTER, 2011; DOUGLAS & SANDRA CARTER,
2121; DOUGLAS & SANDRA CARTER, 1919; DOUGLAS &
SANDRA CARTER, 1885; BA YSHORE LAND DEVELOPMENT
LLC,2556; FELIX LERCH FAMILY TRUST, 70915-021; FELIX
LERCH FAMILY TRUST, 1674; FELIX LERCH FAMILY
TRUST, 1540; JOHN D. ENDRES, 2453; SALVATORE &
ANTIONETTE CAVATAIO, 2590; SALVATORE &
ANTIONETTE CAVATAIO, 2535; GARY ROOKSTOOL &
ELEANOR PORRAS, 1761; GARY ROOKSTOOL & ELEANOR
PORRAS, 51130-049; CASPIAN BUILDERS, LLC, 2231/2350;
WILLIAM D. COLLINS, III, TRUSTEE, ITF FLORIDA SUNBEL T
MORTGAGE CO., 90-05-02297; KELLY CONDON, 2413;
WILLIAM MAE POSTELLE, 2000-315; WILLIAM MAE
POSTELLE,98-410; RENE DAMPHIER, SO 134810; JOSEPH
HARRINGTON, CO 2004091215; MICHAEL RYON, CO
2004081106; AMBER-LOU INVESTMENTS CO., CO 2004100765
- AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.
Item #16A13 - Added
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE
COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY (CRA) ADOPTED AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE CRA
ESTABLISHING POLICIES FOR THE CRA PERTAINING TO
PURCHASING, PERSONNEL, CONTRACTING AUTHORITY
AND BUDGETING. (COMPANION TO ITEM 16G3)
Page 239
May 10,2005
Item #16B1
BID NO. 05-3803 AWARDED TO HASKINS, INC. FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE TWO OF THE IMMOKALEE
FIFTH STREET DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT,
PROJECT NUMBER 51725, IN THE AMOUNT OF $767,158.00,
WITH A TEN PER CENT CONTINGENCY OF $76,715.80-
WORK IS LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF EUSTIS
AVENUE AND THE WEST SIDE OF FIFTH STREET SOUTH.
Item #16B2
A WORK ORDER, IN THE AMOUNT OF $556,825.00, TO
QUALITY ENTERPRISES USA, INC., FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
THE WESTLAKE OUTFALL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
(PROJECT NO. 510056), IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
GENERAL UNDERGROUND UTILITY CONTRACT NO. 04-
3535, AND A BUDGET AMENDMENT, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$239.832.50 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16B3
AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $249.197.23, TO QUALITY ENTERPRISES USA,
INC., FOR INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ON BLUEBILL
AVENUE/111TH AVENUE AT VANDERBILT DRIVE, BID NO.
05-3797 - TO IMPROVE TRAFFIC FLOW.
Item #16B4
A CHANGE ORDER AMENDING THE PINE RIDGE
SUBDIVISION EMERGENCY CULVERT REPLACEMENT
Page 240
May 10,2005
PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 510201), CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $73,289.40, TO QUALITY
ENTERPRISES USA, INC., AND APPROVING THE
ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENT INCLUDING AN
ADDITIONAL $5,000.00 CONTINGENCY AMOUNT - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16B5
ALLOWING THE TRANSPORTATION DIVISION TO
ADVERTISE AND RECEIVE BIDS FOR PROPOSED ROADWAY
AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO GOODLETTE-FRANK
ROAD, FROM GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY TO PINE RIDGE
ROAD, PROJECT NO. 60005. ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT IS
$12.000.000.
Item #16B6
A PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND WARRANTY DEED FOR
THE FEE SIMPLE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY FROM LORI
HAMILTON, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE TPJ, INC.
IRREVOCABLE TRUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING
WIGGINS PASS OUTFALL WITH AN UNOBSTRUCTED
SHEETFLOW OF WATER IN THE AREA KNOWN AS THE
WIGGINS BAY BASIN, PROJECT 512122 ($186,525.00) - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16B7
A DEVELOPER AGREEMENT WITH DEL MAR RETAIL
CENTER, LLC PROVIDING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AND
REIMBURSEMENT FOR A PORTION OF THE LEL Y AREA
Page 241
,,,_..'--'....._,--...,,,,,-. '" .
May 10, 2005
STORMW ATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PROJECT NO.
51101) IN THE AMOUNT OF $146,855.00 - AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16B8
REJECTION OF BID #05-3780 "MOTOROLA CENTRAL
CONTROL IRRIGATION SUPPLIES AND SERVICES" - STAFF
TO RE-FORMAT THE BID AND RE-ADVERTISE.
Item #16B9
BID #05-3773 "ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR ROADWAY
CONTRACTORS" AWARDED TO BONNESS, INC., BETTER
ROADS, INC., AND QUALITY ENTERPRISES USA, INC.
(ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT $1,750,000) - TO
LENGTHEN OR MODIFY TURNING LANES, MODIFY
MEDIAN OPENINGS, INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS,
CONSTRUCT SIDEWALKS AND WORK OF A SIMILAR
NATURE WITHOUT THE NEED TO ISSUE INDIVIDUAL
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS.
Item #16C1
WORK ORDER UC-023, IN THE AMOUNT OF $281,000,
AWARDED TO KYLE CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED, FOR
THE REHABILITATION OF THE POTABLE WATER
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IN THE GULF HARBOR AREA,
PROJECT NUMBER 710102 - TO IMPROVE THE RELIABILITY
AND INCREASE THE CAPACITY OF OUR POTABLE WATER.
Item #16C2
Page 242
May 10,2005
WORK ORDER UC-029, IN THE AMOUNT OF $246,000,
AWARDED TO KYLE CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED, FOR
THE REHABILITATION OF THE POTABLE WATER SYSTEM
SERVING HERON AVENUE IN THE NAPLES PARK AREA,
PROJECT NUMBER 710102 - TO IMPROVE THE RELIABILITY
AND INCREASE THE CAPACITY OF OUR POTABLE WATER.
Item #16C3 - Moved to Item #10E
Item #16C4
CONTRACT 05-3783, "FIXED TERM GEOGRAPHIC
INFORMATION SYSTEMS SERVICES", AWARDED TO
WILSON AND MILLER, CH2M HILL, PBS & J, AYERS AND
ASSOCS. AND MALCOLM PIRNIE - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16C5
WORK ORDER UC-I04, UNDER CONTRACT 04-3535, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $248,884.75, AWARDED TO QUALITY
ENTERPRISES USA, INC., FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY AND CITY OF NAPLES WATER SYSTEM
INTERCONNECT AT DAVIS BLVD., PROJECT 70040 - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16Dl
APPROVING McDONALD'S, INC. AS A SOLE SOURCE
SUPPLIER OF BREAKFAST SANDWICHES FOR THE SUMMER
FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM, WITH AN ESTIMATED FISCAL
Page 243
May 10, 2005
YEAR 2005 EXPENDITURE OF $32,200 - TO PROVIDE FREE
NUTRITIOUS MEALS DURING THE SUMMER TO COLLIER
COUNTY CHILDREN LIVING IN DISADVANTAGED
NEIGHBORHOODS
Item #16D2 - Moved to Item #10F
Item #16D3
CHANGE ORDER #8, IN THE AMOUNT OF $119,772 FOR
ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION, PERMIT
MODIFICATIONS, AND REIMBURSABLES FOR NORTH
NAPLES REGIONAL PARK, CONTRACT #99-2947- WITH
BELLOMO-HERBERT AND COMPANY. CONTRACTORS
Item #16D4
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE AND
APPROPRIATE REVENUE OF $18,035 FOR DOMESTIC
ANIMAL SERVICES - TO PURCHASE AND PROCURE
ADDITIONAL DISASTER AND HURRICANE PREPAREDNESS
SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT
Item #16D5
AUTHORIZATION TO RENT TRUCKS FROM ENTERPRISE
RENT-A-CAR, AT AN ESTIMATED COST OF $40,000 FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION OF FOOD TO RECREATION AND
SCHOOL SITES UNDER THE SUMMER FOOD GRANT
PROGRAM - FOR COST-EFFECTIVE AND RELIABLE
TRANSPORTATION FOR SUMMER FOOD DELIVERY.
Page 244
May 10, 2005
Item #16E1
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE REVENUES AND
APPROPRIATE EXPENDITURES IN THE PURCHASING
DEPARTMENT BUDGET - TO PURCHASE A MAIL MACHINE
THAT WILL MECHANICALLY SEAL AND COUNT ALL THE
DAILY MAIL VOLUME.
Item #16E2
CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT TO FLORIDA POWER &
LIGHT COMPANY (FPL) IN ORDER FOR IT TO PROVIDE
ELECTRIC POWER TO THE NEW NORTH NAPLES
GOVERNMENT CENTER, LOCATED ON ORANGE BLOSSOM
DRIVE, IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE MAIN LIBRARY, AT A
COST NOT TO EXCEED $18.50. PROJECT NUMBER 52534.
Item #16E3
THE UTILIZATION OF STATE CONTRACTS FOR PURCHASES
OF FURNITURE AND FLOOR COVERINGS OVER TWENTY-
FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS - FOR A PERIOD OF TWO
YEARS.
Item #16E4
REPORT AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS
AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD-APPROVED
CONTRACTS - FOR THE PERIOD OF MARCH 31, 2005
THROUGH APRIL 25. 2005.
Item #16F1
Page 245
May 10, 2005
CHANGE ORDER NO.1 TO CONTRACT #05-3753, WITH
SNYDER INDUSTRIES, INC., FOR MAINTENANCE
DREDGING OF WIGGINS PASS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$141,072.00, PROJECT #905221 - TO ADD TIME AND AN
ADDITIONAL QUANTITY OF SAND TO BE DREDGED IN
ORDER TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT.
Item #16F2
CHANGE ORDER #1, FOR A $45,000 INCREASE, TO
CONTRACT #01-3271, TO WORK ORDER #HM-FT-05-03, TO
HUMISTON & MOORE, FOR ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION
MONITORING SERVICES FOR THE WIGGINS PASS
DREDGING PROJECT 905221 - TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL
CONSTRUCTION MONITORING TO THE MAINTENANCE
DREDGING.
Item #16F3
AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2004/2005 TOURISM AGREEMENT
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND PARADISE
ADVERTISING AGENCY, INC., REGARDING
EMERGENCY/DISASTER RELIEF ADVERTISING PLAN FOR
$450,000, TO BE USED FOR EMERGENCY ADVERTISING
AND PROMOTION - TO BE USED FOR OFF-SEASON
ADVERTISING.
Item #16F4
THE PURCHASING OF A FORD TRACTOR, MODEL TSl15A,
FROM LANDIG TRACTOR COMPANY, INC. IN THE AMOUNT
Page 246
May 10, 2005
OF $53,918.42, UNDER FLORIDA STATE CONTRACT #765-900-
04-1 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16G1
THIS ITEM CONTINUED FROM THE APRIL 26, 2005 BCC
MEETING. AMENDMENT A-2 INVOLVING CONTRACT #03-
3473, "CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR PREPARATION OF A
LAND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY FOR
BA YSHORE/GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AREA (CRA) DISTRICT - TO INCREASE
HOURLY RATES FOR PERSONNEL IN CONJUNCTION WITH
THE 2005 CPI INDEX AND TO ADD PERSONNEL
CATEGORIES.
Item #16G2
A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR $161,000 TO INCREASE
BUDGETED REVENUES AND BUDGETED EXPENSES FOR
THE SALE AND PURCHASE OF AVIATION FUEL AT MARCO
ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT - BECAUSE OF AN INCREASE
IN THE SELLING PRICE AND PURCHASE COST PER GALLON
OF AVIATION FUEL
Item #16G3
AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) ESTABLISHING
POLICIES FOR THE CRA PERTAINING TO PURCHASING,
PERSONNEL, CONTRACTING AUTHORITY, AND
Page 247
May 10, 2005
BUDGETING - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY.
Item #16H1
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING THE MARINE CORPS LEAGUE OF NAPLES
FIRST ANNUAL PRESS DAY LUNCHEON ON WEDNESDAY,
APRIL 20, 2005, AT THE ELKS LODGE, 3950 RADIO RD.,
NAPLES; $13.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S
TRAVEL BUDGET.
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING THE 2005 COLLIER COUNTY SAND
DOLLAR AWARDS & TOURISM WEEK LUNCHEON
CELEBRATION ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2005, AT THE
NAPLES BEACH HOTEL & GOLF CLUB, 851 GULF SHORE
BLVD. N., NAPLES; $22.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET.
Item #16H3
COMMISSIONER HENNING'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING THE 2005 COLLIER
COUNTY SAND DOLLAR AWARDS & TOURISM WEEK
LUNCHEON CELEBRATION ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 11,2005,
AT THE NAPLES BEACH HOTEL & GOLF CLUB, 851 GULF
SHORE BLVD. N., NAPLES; $22.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONERS HENNING'S TRAVEL BUDGET.
Page 248
May 10,2005
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR PAYMENT FOR
ATTENDING THE DAVID ELLIS' FAREWELL FUNCTION ON
MAY 9, 2005 AT THE COLLIER BUILDING INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION'S OFFICE, 4799 ENTERPRISE AVE., NAPLES;
$10.00 TO BE REIMBURSED FROM COMMISSIONER
COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET.
Item #16H5
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL'S MEMBERSHIP MIXER, HOSTED
BY EDISON COLLEGE, ON MAY 4, 2005, AT EDISON
COLLEGE COLLIER CAMPUS, 7007 LEL Y CULTURAL
PARKWAY, NAPLES; $15.00 TO BE REIMBURSED FROM
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET.
Item #16H6
COMMISSIONER HALAS' REQUEST FOR PAYMENT FOR
ATTENDING THE DAVID ELLIS'S FAREWELL FUNCTION ON
MAY 9, 2005 AT THE COLLIER BUILDING INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION'S OFFICE, 4799 ENTERPRISE AVE., NAPLES;
$10.00 TO BE REIMBURSED FROM COMMISSIONER HALAS'
TRAVEL BUDGET.
Item #16H7
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING CBIA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DAVID
Page 249
May 10,2005
ELLIS' GOING AWAY PARTY ON MONDAY, MAY 19,2005,
AT CBIA OFFICES, 4799 ENTERPRISE AVE., NAPLES; $10.00
TO BE REIMBURSED FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S
TRAVEL BUDGET.
Item #1611
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR
REFERRED:
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by
the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 250
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
May 10, 2005
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Districts:
1. Lely Community Development District - Minutes of September 15,2004;
October 20,2004; November 11, 2004; December 15, 2004; January 19,
2005; February 16,2005; March 16,2005.
2. Verona Walk Community Development District - Proposed Budget FY
2005-06.
B. Minutes:
1. Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee - Minutes of
March 14, 2005.
2. Lake Trafford Task Force - Minutes of March 2, 2005.
3. Lely Golf Estates Beautification M.S.T.U. -_Agenda for April 21, 2005;
Minutes of March 17,2005.
4. Ochopee Fire Control District - Minutes of February 8, 2005.
5. Pelican Bay Services - Agenda for April 20, 2005.
a) Budget Sub-Committee Minutes of March 16,2005.
6. Collier County Airport Authority - Minutes of March 14,2005; Voting
Conflict form for Robert E. Doyle.
7. Collier County Contractor's Licensing Board - Agenda for April 20, 2005.
8. Immokalee Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee -_Agenda for
April 20,2005; Minutes of March 16,2005.
9. Collier County Planning Commission - Agenda for April 21, 2005;
Minutes of March 17, 2005
H: OataIFormat
May 10, 2005
Item #16Jl
RESOLUTION 2005-180: A RESOLUTION BETWEEN THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND SPRINT
TELEPHONE COMPANY OF FLORIDA FOR CONTINUING
THE EXISTING E-9ll SYSTEM.
Item #16J2
A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER THE PURCHASES OF
GOODS AND SERVICES DOCUMENTED IN THE DETAILED
REPORT OF OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS OPENED FROM
APRIL 2, 2005 THROUGH APRIL 15, 2005 SERVICE A VALID
PUBLIC PURPOSE AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE
OF COUNTY FUNDS TO SATISFY SAID PURCHASES. A
COpy OF THE DETAILED REPORT IS ON DISPLAY IN THE
COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE, COLLIER COUNTY
GOVERNMENT CENTER, 2201 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, 2ND
FLOOR, W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING, NAPLES,
FLORIDA.
Item #16Kl
AN AGREED ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF EXPERT FEES IN
CONNECTION WITH PARCEL 180 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. BIG CORKSCREW ISLAND FIRE
DISTRICT, ET AL., CASE NO. 02-2218-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD
PROJECT #60018) ADDITIONAL COST TO COUNTY IS
$7.050.00 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.
Item #16K2
Page 251
May 10, 2005
A MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND A
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT TO BE DRAFTED
INCORPORATING THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS
THE MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $13,250.00 FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PARCELS
129 AND 729 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
TERRY L. LICHLITER, ET AL., CASE NO. 03-2273-CA (GOLDEN
GATE PARKWAY PROJECT NO. 60027). ADDITIONAL COST
TO COUNTY IS $7,281.00 AFTER CREDIT FOR AMOUNT
DEPOSITED - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.
Item #16K3
AN AGREED ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF ENGINEERING FEES
IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,200.00 IN CONNECTION WITH
PARCELS 131A AND 131B IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. STONEBRIDGE COUNTRY CLUB
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 04-3588-
CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT #66042) - AS DETAILED
IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16K4
A SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE WITH RESPECT TO
CERTAIN CLAIMS MADE BY BETTER ROADS, INC. IN
CONNECTION WITH THE WORK UNDER CONTRACT NO. 02-
3413, I.E., LIVINGSTON ROAD PHASE III - PINE RIDGE ROAD
TO IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT 62071 - AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16K5
Page 252
May 10, 2005
A SETTLEMENT IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED ROSE
GUINANE VS. COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
FILED IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CASE NO. 03-2243-CA- THB,
FOR $15,000.00 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16K6
A SETTLEMENT PRIOR TO TRIAL IN THE LAWSUIT
ENTITLED NICHOLAS MARSIT JR., ET AL. VS COLLIER
COUNTY IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CASE NO. 03-1232-CA
FOR $42,500.00 PLUS MEDIATION COSTS - AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16K7
AN INTER LOCAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND
MUTUAL RELEASE BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE
CITY OF NAPLES IN REFERENCE TO FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, CASE NO.
04-1048GM AND SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN
LAKELAND, FLORIDA, CASE NO. 2DCA #2D05392 - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #17A
RESOLUTION 2005-181: VA-2005-AR-6983; DANIEL AND
GAIL BARTHEL, AS AGENT AND OWNERS REQUESTING AN
AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE FROM SECTION 2.07.00 AND
SECTION 4.02.22 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC)
Page 253
May 10,2005
FOR RELIEF FROM THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD OF 25
FEET TO ALLOW A 3.3 FOOT FRONT SETBACK AND FROM
THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD OF 5 FEET TO A SETBACK OF
1.2 FEET TO ACCOMMODATE A SHADE TRELLIS OVER A
PARKING AREA, AS SHOWN ON THE SURVEY. THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESCRIBED AS SECTION 18,
TOWNSHIP 52 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, BLOCK A, LOT 2,
GOODLAND ISLES, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PLAT
BOOK 6~ PAGE 7.
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2005-22: PUDZ-A-2003-AR-3585, WILSON
BOULEVARD CENTER LLC REPRESENTED BY WILLIAM L.
HOOVER, OF HOOVER PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, INC.,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM A PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD) ZONING DISTRICT TO A
COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD)
ZONING DISTRICT KNOWN AS THE WILSON BOULEVARD
CENTER PUD. THE REZONING WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT
OF AMENDING THE PUD ORDINANCE. A PROPOSED
CHANGE WOULD ALLOW THE WATER MANAGEMENT
AREA TO BE LOCATED WITHIN A PORTION OF THE 75-
FOOT WIDE BUFFER ALONG THE EASTERN AND
SOUTHERN BOUNDARIES OF THE SUBJECT PUD. THE
PROPERTY TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE REZONE IS
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE
BOULEVARD AND WILSON BOULEVARD WITHIN A
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER OF GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, IN
SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. THIS PROPERTY CONSISTS
OF 7.15 ACRES.
Page 254
,.,".---
May 10, 2005
Item #17C - Continued to the May 24, 2005 BCC Meeting
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
APPL YING THE ANNUAL MID-CYCLE INDEXING
ADJUSTMENTS TO AMEND THE WATER AND SEWER
IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE, WHICH IS SCHEDULE TWO
OF APPENDIX A OF CHAPTER 74 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES (THE COLLIER COUNTY
CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE NO. 2001-13, AS
AMENDED) AND PROVIDING FOR A EFFECTIVE DATE OF
JUNE 1 ~ 2005.
Item #17D
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. PUBLIC HEARING TO
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING
THE NAPOLI COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (CDD)
PURSUANT TO SECTION 190.005~ FLORIDA STATUTES.
Page 255
May 10, 2005
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:39 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
'1uLw. ~
FRED W. COYLE, ChaIrman
ATTEST:t\,~" .
DWIGHT"È.BRd¢.J<, CLERK
~ ~~'~, ~
: ,",(,.1.>""" (A.J . .
. ;'í ,,';',."~~ .J, .,,:'.,.,:><j~\l'
'.. . ,)1.'!f'}:P·
These minutes approved by the Board on ..::r LVn.SL 1L1, t..oo s , as
presented if or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 256
^~~_._-..~--_..