BCC Minutes 05/24/2005 R
May 24, 2005
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, May 24, 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 Johnssen, Office of the Clerk of Courts
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
*'''''
.1
"'.. '
~~~,
AGENDA
May 24, 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
THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING
ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
Page 1
May 24, 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
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of to day's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
B. April 26, 2005 - BCC/Regular Meeting
C. May 3, 2005 - BCC/Affordable Housing Workshop
D. May 11, 2005 - BCC/CRA Workshop
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. 20 Year Attendees
1) William Lorenz, Environmental Services
2) Kathryn Nell, County Attorney's Office
3) Raymond Ognibene, Wastewater Collections
4) Raymond Smith, Pollution Control
B. 25 Year Attendees
1) Lazaro Blanco, Transportation Road Maintenance
C. 30 Year Attendees
1) Candice Franco, Human Services
Page 2
May 24, 2005
_'n ~.'----'-
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation to recognize May 29, 2005 as the day to honor those Haitians
who contributed to the greatness of America. To be accepted by Marie E.
Innocent.
B. Proclamation to designate May 30, 2005 as National Moment of
Remembrance on Memorial Day. To be accepted by Jim Elson.
C. Proclamation to designate the week of May 23 through May 29,2005 as
Collier County Emergency Medical Services Week. To be accepted by Dan
Summers, Collier County Emergency Management Director, and Jeff Page,
Collier County Emergency Medical Services Director.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Recommendation to recognize Karla Nicol, Fiscal Technician, Human
Services, as Employee of the Month for May 2005
B. Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for the current fiscal year from
the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) presented to the
Office of Management and Budget. To be accepted by Mike Smykowski,
Director, Office of Management and Budget.
C. Presentation to members of the Collier County Emergency Medical Services
Department recognizing those EMS Paramedics, Firefighters and Law
Enforcement Personnel who through their skills and knowledge have
successfully brought back to life individuals who had died. The "Phoenix" is
a mythological bird who died and rose renewed from its' ashes.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request by Matt Finn to discuss current status of hard shell
clam aquaculture in Collier County.
B. Public Petition request by Marya Repko to discuss a Resolution for support
in the funding of the continuing rehabilitation of Everglades City Hall.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m.. unless otherwise noted.
Page 3
May 24, 2005
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure provided bv Commission members. Marilyn L. Ross, Trustee
of the Marilyn L. Ross Trust, represented by R. Bruce Anderson and
Douglas A. Lewis of Roetzel & Andress, is requesting a variance for a 10-
foot encroachment into the 20foot required rear setback for a swimming pool
and screen enclosure leaving a 1 O-foot rear yard on a waterfront lot, as set
forth in LDC Section 4.02.03. The subject property is located at 221 W. 3rd
Street, in the Little Hickory Shores Subdivision, Unit 1, Lot 15, Block C, in
Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County (Bonita
Springs) Florida.
B. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. V A-2004-AR-7005;
Waldemar Bokrand of Golden Gate Import Export, Inc., represented by
David McKee of Consul- Tech Development Services, Inc., requesting a
variance to reduce the landscape buffer requirement between uses in a PUD
for a varying width from 10 feet to 1 foot for a total distance of 101 Linear
Feet along the south property line. The subject property is located in the Don
Carlos Subdivision of Kings Lake PUD, Section 7, Township 50 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. This item reQuires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided bv
Commission members. PUDZ-A-2004-AR-5998: Collier County Board of
County Commissioners, represented by Vincent A. Cautero, AICP, of
Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., requesting a rezone from Planned
Unit Development (PUD) to Community Facilities Planned Unit
Development (CFPUD) for a project previously known as the Bembridge
PUD, to change the name to the Bembridge Emergency Service Complex
PUD, amend the previously approved PUD document and Master Plan to
show a change in use from residential development and a church or a
nursing home, to allow development of community facilities to include an
Emergency Management Operations Center, other government facilities, and
an existing Elementary School. The project consists of 39.82± acres and is
Page 4
May 24, 2005
located on Santa Barbara Boulevard, north of Davis Boulevard, in Section 4,
Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
B. This item continued from the May 10,2005 BCC Meetin2. Public
Hearing to consider Adoption of an Ordinance Establishing the Heritage Bay
Community Development District (CDD) pursuant to Section 190.005,
Florida Statutes.
C. Public Hearing to consider adoption of an ordinance establishing the
Parklands Collier Community Development District (CDD) pursuant to
Section 190.005, Florida Statutes.
D. Adopt a resolution amending the Public Utilities Division's Miscellaneous
Fees for Services, which is Schedule Six of Appendix A to Section Four of
Collier County Ordinance no. 2001-73, titled the Collier County Water-
Sewer District Uniform Billing, Operating and Regulatory Standards
Ordinance.
E. Adopt a resolution amending the Public Utilities Division's meter
installation charges (tapping fees) and backflow device charges, which is
Schedule Four of Appendix A to Section Four of the Collier County
Ordinance no. 2001-73, titled the Collier County Water-Sewer District
Uniform Billing, Operating and Regulatory Standards Ordinance.
F. Adopt a resolution amending the Public Utilities Division's effluent
irrigation (reuse) customer rates, which is Schedule Three of Appendix A to
Section Four of Collier County Ordinance No. 2001-73, titled the Collier
County Water-Sewer District Uniform Billing, Operating and Regulatory
Standards Ordinance.
G. Recommendation that the Board adopt a Resolution to amend the water and
sewer rates (Schedule One of Appendix A to Section Four of Collier County
Ordinance No. 2001-73, the County's Water-Sewer District Uniform Billing,
Operating and Regulatory Standards Ordinance), providing a delayed
effecti ve date.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. This item to be heard at 4:00 p.m. Discussion regarding early departure
from fill pits on Immokalee Road. (Commissioner Coletta)
Page 5
May 24, 2005
'-~
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. This item to be heard at 4:00 p.m. Discussion regarding early departure
from fill pits on Immokalee Road. (Commissioner Coletta)
B. Appointment of members to the Affordable Housing Commission.
C. Commissioner Henning request for discussion to eliminate Ordinance 90-
60 creating the Citizens Advisory Task Force (CA TF) for the Small Cities
Community Development Block Grant Program, as they have completed the
tasks described in said Ordinance; and to amend Ordinance 91-65 creating
the Affordable Housing Commission (AHC) to include the duty of
controlling budget monies for the CDBC program and furthermore, to act as
the sounding board between the County and local communities.
D. Appointment of Commissioners to serve on the Value Adjustment Board
and set the date for the Organizational Meeting.
E. Discussion regarding creation of the Southwest Florida I -7 5 Expressway
Authority. (Commissioner Coletta)
F. This item to be approved with the Board of County Commissioners
actin!! as the Community Redevelopment A!!ency. Appointment of
members to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory
Board.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. This item to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. Resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending and supplementing a
resolution entitled, "A resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida authorizing the issuance of Collier County, Florida
of $120,000,000 in aggregate principal amount of Collier County, Florida
Gas Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2003 in order to provide funds for the
principal purposes of financing the costs of various transportation
improvements within the County and refinancing certain indebtedness;
pledging the moneys received by the County from the herein described Gas
Tax Revenues to secure payment of the principal of and interest on said
bonds; providing for the rights of the holders of said bonds; providing for the
issuance of additional bonds; providing for certain additional matters in
Page 6
May 24, 2005
bonds; authorizing the awarding of said bonds pursuant to a public bid;
delegating certain authority to the Chair for the award of the bonds and the
approval of the terms and details of said bonds; appointing the paying agent
and registrar for said bonds; authorizing the distribution of a preliminary
official statement and the execution and delivery of an official statement
with respect thereto; establishing a book-entry system of registration for the
bonds; authorizing municipal bond issuance for the bonds; authorizing a
reserve account insurance policy with respect to the bonds; authorizing the
execution and delivery of a continuing disclosure certificate; and providing
an effective date. (Michael Smykowski, Director, Office of Management and
Budget)
B. Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase with
Michael E. Watkins, Henry B. Watkins III, and Timothy G. Carroll,
Trustees, D. Brooks Jones, and Gloria J. Borden for 26.77 acres under the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed
$2,177,000. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Commmunity Development)
C. Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the condemnation of fee
simple interests and/or those perpetual or temporary easement interests
necessary for the construction of roadway, drainage and utility
improvements required for the four-lane expansion of County Barn Road
from Davis Boulevard to Rattlesnake Hammock Road. (Capital
Improvement Element No. 33, Project No. 60101). (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation Services)
D. Approve Change Order No.2 for $1,090,000.00 for Construction
Engineering & Inspection Services by Johnson Engineering, Inc. for
Immokalee Road in order to continue their services, six-lane improvements,
Project No. 60018. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
E. Recommendation to approve Supplemental Agreement No.5 to Professional
Services Agreement No. 01-3195 in the amount of$271,295 for additional
engineering services provided by CH2M Hill, Inc., for design and permitting
modifications for the six-Ianing of Vanderbilt Beach Road from Airport-
Pulling Road to Collier Boulevard, Project No. 63051. (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation Services)
F. Recommendation to determine funding of items identified on the
Page 7
May 24, 2005
--'--
Unfinanced Requirement (UFR) list developed during the FY05 budget
process. (Michael Smykowski, Director, Office of Management and Budget)
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 authorize the Environmental Services
Department to submit a grant proposal to the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection Bureau of Invasive Plant Management
(BIPM) for contractor services to remove melaleuca within the
Conservation Collier Railhead Scrub Preserve (America's Business
Park).
2) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Katherine Lubbers, Mary Ann Chambly, and Ronald Gene
Thomas for 1.14 acre under the Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $37,850.
3) Recommendation to authorize payment for the members of the Collier
County Code Enforcement Board to attend the Florida Association of
Code Enforcement 2005 Educational Workshop.
4) Recommendation to approve Petition A VESMT2005-AR7154 to
Page 8
May 24, 2005
--_.,~
disclaim, renounce and vacate the County's and the Public's interest
in the Drainage Easement conveyed to Collier County by separate
instrument and recorded in Official Record Book 980, Pages 1374
through 1375, and in the Irrigation Main Easement as referenced in
Resolution No. 92-341, as recorded in Official Record Book 1740,
Pages 919 through 948, Public Records of Collier County, Florida,
located in Section 20, Township 48 South, Range 26 East.
5) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Antonie and Stefan Cooke for 1.59 acre under the Conservation
Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $40,900.
6) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Fiddler's
Creek Unit 5, Aviamar Phase One", approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
7) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Valencia
Lakes Phase 5-A", approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
8) Recommendation to approve claims by two former owners of lots
within Imperial Wilderness RV Resort, for reimbursements totaling
$5,456.88 in overpaid impact fees, and authorize payments of the
same.
9) Approve a contract between the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission for the maintenance of waterways markers
and authorize the Environmental Services Director to sign contract
modifications adjusting funding.
10) Recommendation to approve an Amendment to the Water Well
Construction Program Delegation Agreement with South Florida
Water Management District.
11) Recommendation to approve submission of the 2005 Continuum of
Care (CoC) Homeless Assistance Consolidated Grant application to
the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) in the amount of$597,321, and authorize the Chairman to sign
Page 9
May 24, 2005
--~----
the application on behalf of Collier County and the Board of County
Commissioners (BCC).
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve a Resolution establishing a "No Parking"
zone on Vanderbilt Beach Road (CR 862) for a distance of 1000 feet
east and 1000 feet west of the centerline of Vanderbilt Drive (CR 901)
along both the northern and southern shoulders of Vanderbilt Beach
Road, at a cost of approximately $1600.
2) Recommends Board's approval of Adopt-A-Road Agreements (3) for
the following: John R. Wood, Inc. Realty-Jean-Marc Katzeff, A Toda
Marcha and A Toda Marcha.
3) Recommendation to award Bid #05-3804, "Traffic Pre-Emption
Equipment," to Temple, Incorporated.
4) A Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
(BCC) authorizing the filing of the Trip and Equipment Grant
Application with the Florida Commission for the Transportation
Disadvantaged (CTD). ($556,218)
5) Recommendation to award RFP 05-3798, in the amount of$134,002,
to Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc., for consultant services for a
Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Update Study.
6) Recommendation to approve a Work Order in the amount of
$314,275.50 to DN Higgins, Inc. for the Fish Branch Creek Box
Culvert Project (Project #510211), in accordance with the General
Underground Utility Contract No. 04-3535
7) Recommendation to award and approve a contract for RFP-05-3774
"Gordon River Water Quality Park-Engineering Design" in the
amount of $599,850.00 to CH2M Hill.
8) Recommendation to award Bid #05-3822, "Fiber Optic
Communications Installation and Maintenance," to Kent
Technologies, Incorporated (primary) and Precision Contracting
Services, Incorporated (secondary) as part of a joint fiber optics
Page 10
May 24, 2005
_~ ,_.~,__.,_..,"." .w__.._,.,_,
infrastructure project between the Collier County Traffic Operations
Department (project #60172-2) and the Information Technology
Department (project #50028) at an estimated cost of $659,070.51.
9) Recommendation to approve Supplemental Agreement No.2, to
Professional Services Agreement No. 02-3398 in the amount of
$362,688.00 for Additional Engineering Services to be provided by
CH2M Hill, Inc., for design and permitting modifications for the six-
laning of Collier Boulevard from Golden Gate Boulevard to
Immokalee Road, Project No. 65061.
10) Recommendation to approve advertisement for bids to construct the
six-Ianing of Collier Boulevard, from Golden Gate Boulevard to
Immokalee Road, Project No. 65061 at an estimated construction cost
of $20,000,000.
11) Recommendation to award Bid #05-3810 "Livingston Road
Landscape Maintenance Annual Contract" to Commercial Land
Maintenance, Inc. in the amount of $341 ,491.11 including the
alternates.
12) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners waive re-
payment of fleet expenses, totaling $121,100.82, which are due from
ATC/Intelitran Inc. and supplement their insurance payments up to
$187,000.
13) Recommendation that the Board approve, and authorize the Chairman
to execute an amendment to the current contract with McDonald
Transit Associates, Inc. to implement operational modifications to the
Collier Area Transit (CAT) System
14) Recommendation to award Bid #05-3820, "US 41 Roadway Lighting
Maintenance" to Kent Technologies, Incorporated for an estimated
annual cost of $130,500.
15) Recommendation that the board approve initiating the Competitive
Selection and Negotiation process to secure and execute a
professional services agreement with a qualified engineering/
surveying firm to conduct the required survey in Golden Gate Estates
Page 11
May 24, 2005
(GGE) area for approximately 100 miles of local roadways, and the
associated drainage improvements.
16) Recommendation to award bid #05-3832 Livingston Road (Vanderbilt
Beach Road to Immokalee Road) landscape and irrigation installation
to Vila and Son Landscaping Corporation with a base amount of
$692,040.83 and 10% contingency of $69,204.08 for a total of
$761,244.91.
17) Recommendation to award bid #05-3832 Golden Gate Parkway
landscape and irrigation installation to Vila and Son Landscaping
Corporation with a base amount of$405,776.90 and 10% contingency
of$40,577.69 for a total of$446,354.59.
18) Recommendation to award Collier County Bid #05-3830 Davis
Boulevard Landscape and Irrigation Renovations to Vila & Son
Landscaping Corporation with a base bid amount of$112,858.75 and
the Brookside Planting Addendum #3 bid alternate of$19,083.20 plus
a 10% contingency for a total of$145,136.14.
19) Recommendation to award bid #05-3830 U.S. 41 North (Vanderbilt
Beach Road to Immokalee Road) landscape and irrigation installation
to Vila and Son Landscaping Corporation with a base amount of
$277,756.27 and 10% contingency of$27,775.63 for a total of
$305,531.90.
20) Recommendation to award bid #05-3830 U.S. 41 East (Rattlesnake
Hammock to St. Andrews Blvd.) landscape and irrigation installation
to Hannula Landscaping with a base of$429,439.58 and 10%
contingency of $42,943.96 for a total of$472,383.53.
21) Recommendation to award bid #05-3812 Goodlette Frank (Pine Ridge
Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road) Landscape and Irrigation Installation
to Hannula Landscaping with base amount and alternates of
$631,635.43 and 10% contingency of$63,163.54 for a total of
$694,798.97 (Project # 601344).
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to transfer funds in
Page 12
May 24, 2005
the amount of$395,000 from the Collier County Water-Sewer District
Operating Fund (408) Reserve for Contingencies, in addition to a
transfer of $17,000 from the North County Water Reclamation
Facility's capital operating budget and $33,000 from the South
County Water Reclamation Facility's capital operating budget to
cover unanticipated operating expenses in the amount of $445,000
incurred by the North County Water Reclamation Facility,
Wastewater Reuse, and the South County Water Reclamation Facility.
2) Recommendation to approve, execute and record Satisfactions for
certain Water and/or Sewer Impact Fee Payment Agreements. Fiscal
impact is $77.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
3) Recommendation to approve the Satisfactions of Notice of Claim of
Lien for Sanitary Sewer System Impact Fee. Fiscal impact is $48.50
to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
4) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of
Lien for a Solid Waste residential account wherein the County has
received payment and said Lien is satisfied in full for the 1992 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal
impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
5) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of
Lien for a Solid Waste residential account wherein the County has
received payment and said lien is satisfied in full for the 1993 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal
impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
6) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of
Lien for a Solid Waste residential account wherein the County has
received payment and said Lien is satisfied in full for the 1994 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal
impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
7) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of
Lien for a Solid Waste residential account wherein the County has
received payment and said Lien is satisfied in full for the 1995 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal
impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
Page 13
May 24, 2005
8) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of
Lien for a Solid Waste residential account wherein the County has
received payment and said Lien is satisfied in full for the 1996 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal
impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
9) Recommendation to purchase a MC2 Mapping Mobile Collection
System from AMCO Water Metering Systems, Inc. in the amount of
$36,000.00.
10) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution authorizing the acquisition of
land by gift or purchase of non-exclusive perpetual utility and
maintenance easements, temporary construction easements and access
easements for the construction of water transmission mains along C.R.
951 (Collier Boulevard) from Davis Boulevard south to U.S. 41,
Project Numbers 70151 and 70152, at a cost not to exceed
$2,297,444.
11) Approval of the return of the fund balance of$82,402.10 to the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) for Contract
no. GC623, task assignment 2 and 3 and the necessary budget
amendment.
12) Board approval of a budget amendment to recognize additional
revenue from insurance company refunds in the amount of$9,415.
13) Recommendation to approve the transfer of a 0.25 FTE (Full Time
Equivalent) position from Miscellaneous Grants Fund (116) to Water
Pollution Control Fund (114).
14) Recommendation to award the construction of a "Pigging Station for
Immokalee Road 30-inch Force Main", Bid 05-3766R, Project
739431, for $643,500.00 to Douglas N. Higgins, Inc.
15) Request to add two Full Time Equivalents (FTE's) in July 2005 that
were previously approved by the Board of County Commissioners for
the FY2006 Budget and approve a related budget amendment. The
positions are for customer service pertaining to the Solid Waste
Page 14
May 24, 2005
Mandatory Collection and Disposal program. Fiscal impact is $38,700
for FY2005.
16) Recommendation to approve execution of a Letter of Agreement to
provide consulting services, not to exceed $24,500.00, to assist the
Collier County Water-Sewer District (the District") in the
establishment of bulk water and wastewater service rates to provide
bulk service to specific areas served by the City of Marco Island ("the
City"), to develop water and wastewater impact fees for providing
long term bulk service to the City and to review the wholesale water
and wastewater agreements between the District and the City.
17) Recommendation to approve the award of Contract #05-3829 for a
paved pathway and viewing benches around Ponds A and B at the
Eagle Lakes Nature Interpretive Center Project 74050, in the amount
of $357,379.12.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve an agreement with the District School
Board of Collier County for transporting school-age recreation
program participants at an estimated cost of $70,000.
2) Recommendation to award bid #05-3843 for food for the summer
meal program for Parks and Recreation to Cheney Brothers, Inc. at an
estimated cost of $125,000.
3) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to fund hiring
Sheriff's deputies to provide traffic control at the north and south ends
of Gulfshore Drive during weekends, holidays, and spring break.
4) Recommendation to approve deductive Change Order No. 11 in the
amount of(-$1,339,711.79) for direct purchase of materials for the
North Naples Regional Park, Contract No. 01-3189.
5) Recommendation to accept donated funds in the amount of$4,109.36
and approve a budget amendment recognizing the revenue and
appropriating funds for Veterans Community Park.
6) Recommend awarding of Bid 05-3786 Veterinary Supplies,
Page 15
May 24, 2005
-<~-
Medicines, and Drugs for Domestic Animal Services Department in
the estimated annual amount of$15,000 for supplies and $53,000 for
medicines and drugs.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) That the Board of County Commissioners approve fuel purchases with
the GLOBAL-FLEET (Voyager) Credit Card in excess of$25,000 on
an annual basis while under contract with GLOBALFLEET
(V oyager).
2) Report to the Board of County Commissioners concerning the sale
and transfer of items associated with the county surplus auction of
April 9, 2005, resulting in $490,227.00 in gross revenues.
3) Recommendation to award Bid #04-3714 to Massey Services, Inc. as
the new primary vendor and to terminate Terminix International
Company for annual pest control services.
4) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment to transfer
$173,000 from Government Security, Personnel Services to
Government Security, Other Contractual Services to cover the
operating costs of contract security services.
5) Recommendation to approve a First Amendment to City of Naples
Airport Authority Lease Agreement North Quadrant for the Sheriff's
Office Operations Facility.
6) To receive approval to utilize the contract between the Collier County
School Board and Willis, Inc. for fiscal year 2006 group benefit
brokerage and actuarial consulting services in an amount not to
exceed $93,000.
7) Recommendation to approve the after-the-fact submittal of a revised
Hazard Mitigation Grant to the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Department of Homeland Security for Retrofit of Collier
County Health and Public Services Building H in an amount not to
exceed $804,294.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
Page 16
May 24, 2005
1) Recommendation to approve submittal of a Florida Boating
Improvement Program Grant to the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission for the Near Shore Reef Mooring Buoys in
the amount of $125,000.
2) Recommendation to award Bid # 05-3769 to multiple vendors for
"EMS Expendable Medical Supplies and Equipment."
3) Recommendation to approve a Resolution adopting the revised
Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan for Collier County.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation to approve a resolution authorizing the execution of
the Master Joint Participation Agreement (MJP A) between Florida
Department of Transportation and the Collier County Airport
Authority for funding projects at Everglades, Immokalee, and Marco
Island airports.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Henning requests Board approval for reimbursement
to attend a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
Henning to attend the Urban Land Institute Southwest Florida Market
Trends 2005 conference on May 25,2005 at the Three Oaks Banquet
Center in Estero; $25.00 to be paid from Commissioner Henning's
travel budget.
2) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the EDC
Trustee Post-Legislative Delegation Luncheon on Thursday, May 19,
2005 at the Naples Sailing and Yacht Club; $30.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
3) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
was the keynote speaker for the Southwest Florida Federated
Republican Womens Club luncheon on May 2,2005, at the Arbor
Page 17
May 24, 2005
"~".'----.,...
Trace Country Club. $15.00 to be reimbursed from Commissioner
Halas' travel budget.
4) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
to attend the Memorial Day Observance Barbeque honoring America's
fallen heroes on May 30,2005. $5.00 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
attended Ave Maria University's Graduation Reception and Luncheon
on May 7, 2005. $45.00 to be reimbursed from Commissioner
Coletta's travel budget.
6) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
Coletta was a speaker at the ribbon cutting event for the new Science
Building at International College to introduce the Health/Science
Graduate Programs. There was a luncheon following. $10.00 to be
reimbursed from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous Items to File for Record with Action as Directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Recommendation to approve an extension of Byrne Grant 2005-CJ-
K3-09-21-0 1-042 from September 30, 2005 to December 31, 2005 to
allow additional time for the Clerk of Courts to test required software.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the use of Confiscated Trust Funds for crime prevention purposes.
3) 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 16, 2005 through April 29, 2005 serve a valid public
purpose and authorize the expenditure of County funds to satisfy said
Page 18
May 24, 2005
purchases. A copy of the Detailed Report is on display in the County
Manager's Office, Collier County Government Center, 3301 East
Tamiami Trail, W. Harmon Turner Building, 2nd Floor, Naples,
Florida.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDA TION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL P ARTICIP ANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. Petition: SE-2005-AR-7410 Scrivener's Error for correction of language
contained within Section 6.6. B of the approved Triad PUD document to
clarify the rental restriction for the subject property.
B. SE-2005-AR-7412; A resolution of the Board of County Commissioners
amending Resolution Number 03-223, pertaining to the Vanderbilt
Presbyterian Church Conditional Use, to correct a Scrivener's Error due to
omission of an accurate measurement in the legal description of the site
contained within Exhibit "B".
C. This item continued from the May 10, 2005 BCC Meetin!!.
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 July 1, 2005.
Page 19
May 24, 2005
-......--
D. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to
adopt a resolution amending Stewardship Sending Area 3 ("BCI SSA 3") in
the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay District (RLSA), designating
248.9 acres therein as BCI SSA 3A, approving a credit agreement for BCI
SSA 3A and establishing the number of credits generated by the designation
of said Stewardship Sending Area ("BCI SSA 3A").
E. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to
adopt a resolution amending Stewardship Sending Area 5 ("BCI SSA 5") in
the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay District (RLSA), designating
651.3 acres therein as BCI SSA SA, approving a credit agreement for BCI
SSA SA and establishing the number of credits generated by the designation
of said Stewardship Sending Area ("BCI SSA SA").
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
Page 20
May 24, 2005
.".._~~
May 24, 2005
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.
The Board of County Commissioners' meeting is now in session.
Mr. Mudd, who do we have for the invocation today? Is that
going to be you?
Will you all please stand for the invocation, please.
MR. MUDD: Heavenly Father, we come to you today as a
community thanking you for the blessings that you have so generously
provided. Today we are especially thankful for the dedicated elected
officials, staff, and the members of the public who are here to help
lead this county as it makes the important decisions that will shape our
community's future.
We pray that you will guide, lead and direct the decisions made
here today so that your will for our county would always be done.
These things we pray in your name, amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you please join us in the Pledge
of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2A
REGULAR CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED
AND OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Mr. Mudd, do you want to tell us
about any changes to the agenda?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Agenda changes, Board of County Commissioners' meeting, May
24th, 2005.
The first item, request to continue item 10D to June 14th, 2005,
Page 2
May 24, 2005
BCC agenda, and that's to approve change order number two for
$1,080,000 for the construction and engineering and inspection
services by Johnson Engineering, Inc., for Immokalee Road in order to
continue their services, six-lane improvements, project number 60018,
and that was at staffs request.
Next item is to add item lOG, and that's a recommendation to
authorize Board of County Commissioners' Chairman to enter into a
Local Agency Program (LAP) Agreement with the Florida
Department of Transportation on behalf of Collier County for receipt
of federal dollars for Tamiami Trail enhancements at the Port of the
Islands Community.
That basically came in as a late request from petitioner from the
community, and the MPO had made a decision to discontinue the
scenic route on 41, but there are some dollars, and we believe we can
help the community do what they want to do out there as far as their
medians and sign and whatnot. So we added it to the agenda, and all
commissioners have received a copy.
Next item is to request to continue item 16B5 to the June 14th,
2005, BCC meeting. It's a recommendation to award RFP-05-3798 in
the amount of $134,002 to Tindale-Oliver and Associates for
consultant services for the transportation facilities impact fee impact
study, and that's at staffs request.
The next item is to move 16B12 to 10H, and that's a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners waive
repayment of Fleet expenses totaling $121,182 which are due from
A TC/Intelitran, Inc., to implement operational modifications to the
Collier Area Transit System, and that's at Commissioner Coyle's
request.
The next item is to move item 16B13 to 101, and that's a
recommendation that the board approve and authorize the chairman to
execute an amendment to the current contract with McDonald Transit
Associates, Inc., to implement operational modifications to the Collier
Page 3
~'--'-"~--'~'-""--'~"-'._--~---~--'--'-"-----,.....
May 24, 2005
Area Transit (CAT) System, and that's also at Commissioner Coyle's
request.
The next item is item 16B 19. The obj ective of the executive
summary should read, to provide landscape and irrigation installation
on u.S. 41 North rather than Livingston Road, Vanderbilt Beach to
Immokalee, and that's at staffs request.
Somebody -- somebody carried over that objective from item
16B 16, and it was the same one on that item, but -- and when you read
16B19, it basically has the u.S. 41 North through it all except in the
objective, and that clarifies that particular item.
The next item is to withdraw item 16C9, and that's a
recommendation to purchase an MC2 Mapping Mobile Collection
System from AM CO Water Metering Systems, Inc., in the amount of
$36,000, and that's at staffs request.
The next item is to move 16D3 to 10J, and that's a
recommendation to approve a budget amendment to fund hiring
sheriffs deputies to provide traffic control at the north and south ends
of Gulfshore Drive during weekends, holidays, and spring break, and
that was at Commissioner Henning's request.
Item 16E 1 is a note for the record. This purchase is being made
off the State of Florida Purchase Contract, and that's at staffs request.
Next item is item 17D, the third paragraph of the resolution
should read: Whereas, owner has voluntarily requested the removal of
two additional land use layers, rather than, an additional land use
layer, and that's at staffs request.
The next three items on the back -- on the back of the page -- and
I'll try to summarize these to some extent -- they're time certain items.
The first item that's time certain is at 11 a.m. this morning, and
that's item lOA to be heard, again, at 11 a.m., and that's basically the
gas tax bond issue, the second bond issue that will be coming forward
to the Board of County Commissioners, and that bond is for
approximately a hundred million dollars.
Page 4
-----.-
May 24, 2005
The next item that's time certain is item 8A to be heard at one
p.m. today, and that is the Bembridge PUD, and that has to do with the
emergency services complex zoning that the board will hear. Again,
item 8A, which is the Bembridge PUD, which has to do with the
emergency services complex building, will be heard at one p.m.
The next item to be heard, which is a time certain, is item 9 A,
and that's to be heard at four p.m., and that's a discussion regarding
early departure from fill pits on Immokalee Road, and that's at
Commissioner Coletta's request.
That's all I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr.
Mudd.
Does the county attorney have anything?
MR. WEIGEL: No, thank you. Mr. Mudd has covered it all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then I'll ask the Board of County
Commissioners if they have ex parte disclosures for the consent and
summary agenda and any changes to the regular agenda.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning, Chair. This
morning I -- the only disclosures I have on the summary agenda are
1 7D and 17E, and I have no other changes that I want to bring forth at
this time for the regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I have no changes to the
regular agenda and no disclosures on the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have no changes, and on the
summary -- I'm sorry. It will just take a second here -- and I have no
disclosures on the summary agenda either.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chair, I have no disclosures
Page 5
-- -""---'~-'<»'-"'-'-"'-""-----.-
May 24, 2005
on today's summary agenda and no further changes to today's agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I have no further changes to the
agenda, and I also do not have any disclosures for the summary
agenda.
Do I hear a motion for approval of the regular, consent, and
summary agenda as amended?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So moved.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Coletta, a
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 carries unanimously.
Page 6
-.......<.....------
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
May 24. 2005
Reauest to continue Item 10D to June 14. 2005 BCC Aaenda: Approve Change
Order No. 2 for $1,080,000 for Construction and Engineering and Inspection
Services by Johnson Engineering, Inc., for Immokalee Road in order to continue
their services, six-lane improvements, Project No. 60018. (Staffs request)
Add Item 10G: Recommendation to authorize Board of County
Commissioners Chairman to enter into a Local Agency Program (LAP) Agreement
with the Florida Department of Transportation, on behalf of Collier County, for
receipt of Federal dollars for Tamiami Trail enhancements at the Port of the
Islands community. (Staff's request.)
Reauest to continue Item 16B5 to the June 14. 2005 BCC Aaenda:
Recommendation to award RFP-05-3798 in the amount of $134,002, to Tindale-
Oliver and Associates, Inc., for consultant services for a Transportation Facilities
Impact Fee Update Study. (Staff's request.)
Move 16B12 to 10H: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
waive re-payment of fleet expenses, totaling $121,100.82, which are due from
ATCllntelitran, Inc. to implement operational modifications to the Collier Area
Transit (CAT) System. (Commissioner Coyle's request.)
Move 16B13 to 101: Recommendation that the Board approve and authorize the
Chairman to execute an amendment to the current contract with McDonald Transit
Associates, Inc., to implement operational modifications to the Collier Area
Transit (CAT) System. (Commissioner Coyle's request.)
Item 16B19: The "OBJECTIVE" of the Executive Summary should read: To
provide landscape and irrigation installation on U.S. 41 North (rather than
Livingston Road) (Vanderbilt Beach Road to Immokalee Road). (Staff's request.)
Withdraw Item 16C9: Recommendation to purchase a MC2 Mapping Mobile
Collection System from AMCO Water Metering Systems, Inc., in the amount of
$36,000. (Staff's request)
Move 16D3 to 10J: Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to fund
hiring Sheriffs deputies to provide traffic control at the north and south ends of
Gulfshore Drive during weekends, holidays and spring break. (Commissioner
Henning's request.)
Item 16E1: Note for the record: This purchase is being made off the State of
Florida Purchase Contract. (Staff's request.)
Item 17D: The third paragraph of the Resolution should read: "Whereas, Owner
has voluntarily requested the removal of two additional land use layers . . . ."
(rather than "an additional land use layer. . . . ." ) (Staffs request.)
Page 2
Agenda Changes
May 24, 2005
Time Certain Items:
Item 8A to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. PUDZ-A-2004-AR-5998: Collier County Board of
County Commissioners, represented by Vincent A. Cautero, AICP, of Coastal
Engineering Consultants, Inc., requesting a rezone from Planned Unit
Development (PUD) to Community Facilities Planned Unit Development (CFPUD)
for a project previously known as the Bembridge PUD, to change the name to the
Bembridge Emergency Service Complex PUD, amend the previously approved
PUD document and Master Plan to show a change in use from residential
development and a church or a nursing home, to allow development of community
facilities to include an Emergency Management Operations Center, other
government facilities, and an existing Elementary School. The project consists of
39.82± acres and is located on Santa Barbara Boulevard, north of Davis
Boulevard, in Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida.
Item 9A to be heard at 4:00 p.m. Discussion regarding early departure from fill
pits on Immokalee Road. (Commissioner Coletta)
Item 10A to be heard at 11:00 a.m. Resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending and supplementing a
resolution entitled, "A resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida authorizing the issuance of Collier County, Florida of $120,000,000
in aggregate principal amount of Collier County, Florida Gas Tax Revenue Bonds,
Series 2003 in order to provide funds for the principal purposes of financing the
costs of various transportation improvements within the County and refinancing
certain indebtedness; pledging the moneys received by the County from the
herein described Gas Tax Revenues to secure payment of the principal of and
interest on said bonds; providing for the rights of the holders of said bonds;
providing for the issuance of additional bonds; providing for certain additional
matters in respect to said bonds; and providing for an effective date for this
resolution." Authorizing the issuance of the Collier County, Florida Gas Tax
Revenue Bonds, Series 2005 in an aggregate principal amount of not exceeding
$100,000,000; making certain covenants and agreements with respect to said
bonds; authorizing the awarding of said bonds pursuant to a public bid;
delegating certain authority to the Chair for the award of the bonds and the
approval of the terms and details of said bonds; appointing the paying agent and
registrar for said bonds; authorizing the distribution of a preliminary official
statement and the execution and delivery of an official statement with respect
thereto; establishing a book-entry system of registration for the bonds;
authorizing municipal bond issuance for the bonds; authorizing a reserve account
insurance policy with respect to the bonds; authorizing the execution and delivery
of a continuing disclosure certificate; and providing an effective date.
May 24, 2005
Item #2B, #2C and #2D
MINUTES OF THE APRIL 26, 2005 BCC REGULAR MEETING,
MINUTES OF THE MAY 3,2005 BCC/AFFORDABLE HOUSING
WORKSHOP MEETING AND MINUTES OF THE MAY 11, 2005
BCC/CRA WORKSHOP MEETING - APPROVED
Do I hear a motion for approval of the April 26, 2005, BCC
regular meeting minutes, the May 3rd, 2005, BCC, affordable housing
workshop minutes, and the May 11, 2005, BCC/CRA workshop?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So move.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Halas, 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: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It carries unanimously.
Item #3A
SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD
MEMBERS) - PRESENTED
County Manager, I think we have service awards for our
employees and advisory members today.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, we do. We have several, sir. Are we
Page 7
May 24, 2005
going to come down, or are we going to do it from up there?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to come down.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, it's, indeed, an
honor today that I have the privilege to announce the 20-year
awardees for service to our county.
And the first recipient is Bill Lorenz from environmental
servIces.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks for all your hard work.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much for all your
hard work.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Staying power.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And patience.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Our next recipient -- and, David, I hope
you'll let her come down -- is Kathryn Nell from the county attorney's
office.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next recipient is Raymond Ognibene from
wastewater collections.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks for all your staying power.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thanks.
MR. MUDD: And the next 20-year recipient is Raymond Smith
from pollution control.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I congratulated you in the elevator.
Thanks for all you do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, very well done, thanks.
MR. MUDD: We have a 25-year recipient, and that's Lazaro
Blanco from transportation road maintenance.
(Applause.)
Page 8
May 24, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You have always been in road
maintenance all those 25 years?
MR. BLANCO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Congratulations for 25 years.
MR. MUDD: We have a 30-year recipient, and that's Candice
Franco from human services.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Congratulations. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll bet you're proud. You should be.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Another 30 years?
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION TO RECOGNIZE MAY 29, 2005 AS THE DAY
TO HONOR THOSE HAITIANS WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THE
GREATNESS OF AMERICA-ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that concludes our service awards
for today.
Commissioner, and that brings us to proclamation, paragraph 4,
4A. It's a proclamation to recognize May 29th, 2005, as a day to
honor those Haitians who contributed to the greatness of America.
To be accepted by Marie E. Innocent.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And to be present for the presentation of
this proclamation is Maria-Elsie Innocent, president and spokesperson,
and Honorable Raymond Joseph, Haitian Ambassador in Washington,
DC.
Are all of these people here?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right in the front row.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Honorable Ralph Latortue,
Haitian Consul General in Miami; Honorable Maurissaint Jean-Irvelt
Page 9
May 24, 2005
Chery, former Senator for Southeastern Haiti; Pastor J ean- Renaud
Paul, Clergy; Pastor Jose Innocent, Clergy; Tony Chermeal, Clergy;
and Frank and Anna Rodriguez; Nicolas Desilus; Pierre, Marie Pierre;
Max Desir; Joseph A. Derival; and Vickijo Lechworth.
Are all those people here? If you are, please come up to the
front, because Commissioner Coletta is going to read this
proclamation for you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is, indeed, an honor to be
able to read this proclamation today in honor of our Haitian residents
and members of the community.
Whereas, Collier County recognizes the month of Mayas a
special meaning for the Haitian-American community living in Collier
County; and,
Whereas, May 18th is Haitian Flag Day, one of the most beloved
holidays; and,
Whereas, May marks an anniversary of the declaration of
abolishing slavery proclaimed by the "Society of Friends with the
Negroes," which gave new life to the struggle for independence in
Haiti; and,
Whereas, also (sic) marks an anniversary of the Haitian
American Corporation, Incorporated; and,
Whereas, May coincides with Memorial Day and should be a
month to remember those Haitians who came to fight for the
independence of the United States of America, many of whom
engaged with valor and distinction in the Battle of Savannah, Georgia.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that May 29th, 2005, be
recognized as the day to honor those Haitians who contributed to the
greatness of America, together with all those ethnic groups that have
come to this country to make it a beacon for the world.
Done and ordered this, the 24th day of May 2005, Fred Coyle,
Chairman.
Page 10
May 24, 2005
And it's my pleasure, sir, to make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion for approval by Commissioner
Coletta, 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 is unanimous.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hello, how are you? Good to see
you agaIn.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you like to say something? At
the podium.
MS. INNOCENT: Well, today's a great day. And I thank you, to
the commissioners, for giving us the opportunity to have that great
proclamation for the Haitian community, and thank you, again, and
God bless America.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4 B
PROCLAMATION TO DESIGNATE MAY 30, 2005 AS
NATIONAL MOMENT OF REMEMBRANCE ON MEMORIAL
DAY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Sir, the next item is 4B, and that's a proclamation
to designate May 30th, 2005, as National Moment of Remembrance
Page 11
~'--'-'--'-"'~~'~----~---,-..
May 24, 2005
on Memorial Day, to be accepted by Major Ed Elson.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How about Jim Elson?
MR. MUDD: Jim.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Come on, Jim.
MR. ELSON: Oh, thank you. I'm coming.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Which do you prefer, Jim or Ed?
MR. ELSON: Jim is fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Jim, okay.
MR. ELSON: My other twin.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Whereas, three years after the Civil War
ended on May the 5th, 1868, the head of an organization of union
veterans, the Grand Old Army of the Republic, established Decoration
Day as a time for the nation to decorate the graves of the war dead
with flowers; and,
Whereas, Major General John A. Logan declared Decoration Day
should be observed on May the 30th. It is believed that this date was
chosen because flowers would be in bloom all over the country; and,
Whereas, by the end of the 19th century, Memorial Day
ceremonies were being held on May the 30th throughout the nation.
State legislators passed proclamations designating the day, and the
Army and the Navy adopted regulations for proper observance at their
facilities; and,
Whereas, after Wodd War I, the day was expanded to honor
those who have died in all American wars; and,
Whereas, we celebrate Memorial Day to remind all Americans of
the importance of remembering those who sacrificed for their
freedom; and,
Whereas, we recognize those 83 Floridians who have given their
lives in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation
Iraqi Freedom.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, to join us in a unifying act
Page 12
___·'_..____.___....__0__----...-
May 24, 2005
of remembrance for all Americans, and to observe the national
moment of remembrance on Memorial Day, Monday, May the 30th,
2005, at three p.m., local time.
Done and ordered this 24th day of May, 2005, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Fred Coyle, Chairman.
Commissioners, I make a recommendation that we approve this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There's a 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 passes unanimously.
Jim, thank you very much. Appreciate all your hard work.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait, get a picture in your uniform.
MR. ELSON: In my uniform, my work uniform. Thanks. Today
IS --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: By the way, Jim Elson is a veteran and
president of the Veterans Council of Collier County.
MR. ELSON: Right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So just make sure everybody
understands what a good job you do.
MR. ELSON: Well, I want to thank you for your support of the
Veterans Council, and particularly for remembering the moment of
silence on Memorial Day, which is, of course, going to be at three
p.m.
In the morning, at 9:30 at the Naples Memorial Gardens, we are
Page 13
May 24, 2005
having our annual ceremony. That's on lllth Avenue North just north
of Naples Park. And this year we're honoring the soldiers, men and
women, who have died in defense of our freedoms, not only from all
wars, but particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have also had one
soldier from Collier County be killed in action.
So this year is to pay tribute to those particular people who are
currently fighting this war on terrorism and also to honor and thank
the people from Collier County who have served who have spent their
time overseas that are now back being residents in Collier County.
We'll have 15 to 20 of those honorees at our ceremony to thank them
as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Thank you very much, Jim.
MR. ELSON: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Appreciate it.
MR. ELSON: Appreciate your support.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good, thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION TO DESIGNATE THE WEEK OF MAY 23
THROUGH MAY 29, 2005 AS COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Sir, the next proclamation is 4C. It's a
proclamation to designate the week of May 23rd through May 29th,
2005, as Collier County Emergency Services' Week, to be accepted by
Dan Summers, Collier County emergency management director, and
Jeff Page, Collier County Emergency Medical Services director.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And this proclamation will be presented
by Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I see an awful lot of EMS people in
Page 14
~..~-_.~_..," .
- ---- --...------1"'-
May 24, 2005
the back. If they'd like to come forward to be recognized today--
because I think it's very, very important to the -- of the work that you
do here in Collier County. You're more than welcome to come up in
front here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Somebody has to start.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Don't move.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We need a leader here to lead
the way.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm having a heart attack.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Halas -- all right.
That's a woman leading the way, right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Whereas, the Collier County
Bureau of Emergency Services', Department of Emergency Medical
Services paramedics care for victims of sudden life-threatening
injuries and illnesses, often under stressful conditions and in high-risk
situations to save the lives of others; and,
Whereas, the EMS paramedics must rapidly assess, manage, and
effectively provide care in unpredictable situations that require putting
themselves in danger; and,
Whereas, EMS paramedics are often the first contact many
residents and visitors to Florida have with the health care system, the
residents and visitors of the State of Florida benefit daily from their
efforts; and,
Whereas, the EMS paramedics provide education, assessment,
prevention, and referral services in addition to their emergency
activities; and,
Whereas, it is crucial that the general public be made aware of,
understand and support, and effectively use its local emergency
medical services system; and,
Whereas, recognition is due to all emergency medical
professionals serving in a variety of roles for their unselfish dedication
to Florida's residents and visitors.
Page 15
May 24, 2005
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of May 23rd
through May 29th, 2005, be designated as Collier County Emergency
Medical Services Week.
Done and ordered this 24th day of May, 2005, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Fred W. Coyle, Chair.
And I move that we accept this proclamation and approve it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Halas, a
second by?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: By Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Get up front so we can see you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We've still got some more in the
back there.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Dan or Jeff, one of you, whoever
wants to accept this. Thank you for the dedicated work you do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Dan.
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, thank you. This is an exciting
day . You're going to see some of these faces again in support and
recognition of their Phoenix awards, and it's a real honor to see these
folks, not only here today, but to know what we're -- how we're
supporting them for EMS week and the work that they do, the
professional work that they do every day during thick and thin.
Page 16
...... -<.'"'-
May 24, 2005
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Mr. Summers.
(Applause.)
Item #5A
RECOGNIZING KARLA NICOL, FISCAL TECHNICIAN,
HUMAN SERVICES, AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR
MAY, 2005 - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to paragraph 5,
which is presentations, 5A, which is a recommendation to recognize
Karla Nicol, fiscal technician, human services, as employee of the
month of May of 2005, and I'll read that if you can get Ms. Nicol to
come forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ms. Nicol?
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Karla Nicol was a relatively new employee when
she recognized the importance of community service. She took
responsibility in working with other human services employees to
oversee the creation of the Get Help Clinic associated with the annual
point in time survey.
The survey counts the number of homeless men, women, and
children in Collier County in order to secure state and federal funding
for housing of these individuals.
Ms. Nicol's selflessly sought -- it's easy for you to say --
selflessly sought donations from county employees, area businesses,
and other county departments to ensure the clinic made needed
resources available for individuals considered homeless. She staffed
the table with her daughter that provided assistance to homeless
children at St. Matthew's House.
Ms. Nicol was able to personally assist individuals within the
Page 1 7
May 24, 2005
clinic described above ushering them to the variety of services that
were made available to them. She assisted individuals in getting eye
exams, testing for tuberculosis and hepatitis, and helped with dental
work.
She exceeded expectations of the human services department in
assisting those individuals less fortunate and in protecting the health,
safety, and welfare of Collier County.
Karla displays a can-do attitude in every task she is faced with.
She offers positive solutions for day-to-day activities and is pleasant
and appreciated by her colleagues. She recently designed a new
reporting method for social services programming, and that was easy
to read and provided accountability necessary for her position.
She also adopted a payment mechanism that is tied to the Florida
Medicaid system. It is anticipated that savings will amount to
approximately $600,000 for taxpayers this fiscal year because of her
efforts.
The human services department helps sponsor an annual get help
clinic for Collier County's homeless population, in which I described
above, that she was -- that she was instrumental in the particular effort
this year. This year was the best ever. They basically counted some
135 men, women, and children who had become homeless that were
assisted with this effort.
Because of Ms. Nicol's outstanding performance, she has
displayed an enormous ability to accomplish a great deal in a short
time and has become a vital, important contributing member to the
human services department team.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'd like to present the Employee
of the Month -- of the Month, Ms. Karla Nicol, who is the Employee
of the Month for May of2005.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Here's a letter of appreciation. Probably
more importantly a check. Thank you very much.
Page 18
May 24, 2005
County Manager, doesn't she get a free parking space for this
period of time, for at least a month? Yeah, take Jim Mudd's. You can
use his parking space for the next month.
MS. NICOL: Perfect. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you, especially for the
$600,000 you saved the taxpayers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Thank you.
Item #5B
DISTINGUISHED BUDGET PRESENTATION AWARD FOR THE
CURRENT FISCAL YEAR FROM THE GOVERNMENT
FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION (GFOA) PRESENTED TO
THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET - PRESENTED
Commissioners, the next presentation is 5B. It's the distinguished
budget presentation award for the current fiscal year from the
Government Finance Officers Association, the GFOA, presented to
the office of management and budget, to be accepted by Mike
Smykowski, director of the office and management budget Collier
County.
Commissioners, I will note that this is the 18th year that this
office has received this prestigious award.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Thank you very much.
Mike, come on up. Get your picture taken. And you even get a
plaque.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you want to say something, Mike?
MR. MUDD: Want to get a picture.
MR. SMYKOWSKl: Given the number of people in the room,
I'll be brief. I'm Michael Smykowski, budget director.
Page 19
May 24, 2005
I'm happy to accept this award on behalf of my staff and all of
the county manager staff and the constitutional officers who all work
hard with a concerted effort toward the annual budget process.
And the important thing to note here, the GFOA award
recognizes constant improvement because it's -- our budget is
reviewed by a panel of peers that make suggestions for improvements
to our budget document itself and the process, and we look forward to
the critique from a peer group and making continuous improvement to
our process. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Mike. Congratulations.
(Applause.)
Item #5C
PRESENTATION TO MEMBERS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
RECOGNIZING THOSE EMS PARAMEDICS, FIREFIGHTERS
AND LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL WHO THROUGH
THEIR SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE HA VE SUCCESSFULL Y
BROUGHT BACK TO LIFE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAD DIED -
PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to presentation 5C.
It's a presentation to members of the Collier County Emergency
Medical Services Department recognizing those EMS paramedics,
firefighters, and law enforcement personnel who, through their skills
and knowledge, have successfully brought back to life individuals
who had died. The Phoenix is the mythological bird who died and
rose renewed from its ashes. Mr. Dan Summers will present.
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, good morning, Dan
Summers, Bureau of Emergency Services. This is, indeed, an honor
for me as a former paramedic to have the opportunity to acknowledge
Page 20
May 24, 2005
the efforts of these fine young men and women across our community.
And as you know, the Phoenix charac -- the Phoenix is our
mythological sacred bird that died and was renewed from its own
ashes. These young men and women are involved in a phenomenal
number of resuscitation rates in Collier County, putting us as one of
the leaders in the country in successful resuscitation.
We have a huge number of folks here today, and what I would
like to suggest is that when I call their name, I will ask them to stand
up front. You can -- we will ask you to rise and we'll take some
photographs, and I'm going to adjourn this group back downstairs and
physically give them their awards down there, due to the large number
of folks that we have.
I'm very proud of these folks, and under the bureau, it's, indeed,
my honor. I'm going to do my best with their names and ask them to
step forward.
From Collier County Emergency Medical Services, Crista
Anderson.
(Applause.)
MR. SUMMERS: And I have a large group, so we'll give them a
round of applause at the end. Christine Baker, Diego Carmona,
Christian DeBiasi, Dennis DiSarro, Alan Drescher, Mary Esch, Bruce
Gastineau, Sheri Green, Ken Haberkorn, Anthony Hiserodt, Serina
Krauss, Alan Pitts, Allen Schelm, Dr. Robert Tober, and Lieutenant
John Yates. If you'll remain standing, this is our Collier County
Emergency Medical Services team. Let's give them a round of
applause.
(Applause.)
MR. SUMMERS: From our local fire departments, representing
Big Corkscrew Island Fire Department, Engineer Adam Disarro, John
Hart, who is receiving two awards for his successful resuscitation
efforts, and Robert Kline, also receiving two awards today. A round
of applause from our Big Corkscrew.
Page 21
"<--'._-
May 24, 2005
(Applause.)
MR. SUMMERS: Representing the East Naples Fire
Department, Manny Arroyo, Mike Hannon, C.J. Melheim, and Dave
Perez, from the East Naples fire district.
(Applause.)
MR. SUMMERS: Oops, I failed to turn the page, Kevin Nelmes
and Kris Occhipinti. Chris, I didn't do well on your name, did I,
Chris?
Representing the City of Marco Island Fire Department, Dustin
Beatty, Chief Chris Byrne, Captain Jeff Kutzke, Engineer Paul
MacMillin, and Marco Meza, from the City of Marco Island.
(Applause.)
MR. SUMMERS: Ifwe were going to have a medical
emergency, this would be the time to do it.
Representing the City of Naples, Paramedic Erik Baltodano,
Lieutenant Don DeTeso, Paramedic Steven Hunton, and Lieutenant
Mike Nichols, from the City of Naples.
(Applause.)
MR. SUMMERS: Now, representing a number of recipients
from the North Naples fire district, Jerry Sandford. Jerry, if you'll
come forward. I know that you're covering for all of your
representatives today, and I would like to take the opportunity to read
the names of the recipients from North Naples who are not here today.
Bruce Alleman, Ryan Clark, Engineer Eric Espieta, Rick Green,
Dale Grubbs, Robert Lowell, Jason McCormick, Lieutenant Andy
Percival, Jerry Sanlin, Javier Spargatis, Michael Swanson, Mike
Werley, and Ryan Wertz. Again, from North Naples Fire Department,
and Jerry Sanford is representing them.
Last -- a round of applause for them. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. SUMMERS: And last, but certainly not least, from our
Collier County Sheriffs Office, Sergeant J.J. Carroll.
Page 22
May 24, 2005
(Applause.)
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, thank you very much for this
opportunity. I do have a guest speaker, and I would like to introduce
to you -- we'll ask these folks -- we'll take a picture and ask these
young men and women to take a seat.
We have a special guest, Mr. Watson, whose family was
involved in an emergency medical incident during Hurricane Charley,
and they would like to make (sic) a few words to you and paramedics
here.
Ladies and gentlemen, our Phoenix award winners.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Okay. Now, you all have to smile.
MR. SUMMERS: Fantastic, take your seats.
(Applause.)
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, our emergency medical
system was tested to the maximum during the 2004 hurricane season.
One of the things that we took great pride in was our ability to assist
our neighbors. We think we did a good job in Charlotte County
assisting that community with its ground zero impacts of Hurricane
Charley.
Mr. Watson and his son are here, were involved and supported by
Collier County EMS during Hurricane Charley, and they'd like to say
a few words.
Mr. Watson?
MR. WATSON: Good morning, Commissioners. On August the
18th of last year, unfortunately my son was struck by lightning. Y'all
had made a very wise decision, in my opinion, to send an ambulance
to Charlotte County to help with the disaster relief over there.
My son is a typical 16-year-old boy that loves fishing, helping
others, aggravating his little brother, and would probably like to fish
more than he would eat.
The day that this happened, my world crumbled. Minutes turned
Page 23
May 24, 2005
into -- even seconds turned into hours. We got the phone call and left
within 15 minutes from Sebring, Florida. When we left, I had no idea
if I was ever going to be able to see my son alive again or not.
We made phone calls on the way over, got prayer chains started,
and believe me, prayer works. People were praying for God to help
the doctors and anoint them with the wisdom to -- and the nurses as
well to help Witt.
There was -- there's not enough words to be able to express the
gratitude of our family to the EMS workers that helped my son that
day. He was approximately dead for 20 minutes.
And through the efforts of the four EMS that were there that day,
they were able to -- and they were definitely anointed by God to be
able to do it -- brought Witt back to life, and he's here with us today
doing extremely well, and it would not have been possible had it not
been for Collier County sending that ambulance up there.
Later on when we go downstairs, we have a plaque for each one
of the four men that were involved. But let me read off their names to
you. They're Dr. Robert Tober, Lieutenant John Yates, Jay James, and
Steve Hunton. These men did a fabulous job in helping Witt, because
to them failure was not an option.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You know, anyone who knows about our
EMS services here in Collier County recognizes that it is the best in
the nation, and largely because of the very high quality of employees
we have and their dedication to work and to the high training
standards established by Dr. Bob Tober, who is responsible for
establishing the protocols and training our EMS personnel.
So I would like to express my appreciation to all of you for the
wonderful job that you do. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Page 24
-"'<"'_'1
--'-----_."._-
May 24, 2005
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY MATT FINN TO DISCUSS
CURRENT STATUS OF HARD SHELL CLAM AQUACULTURE
IN COLLIER COUNTY - BOARD DIRECTED STAFF TO
INCLUDE CHANGES IN NEXT LDC CYCLE - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to paragraph 6,
which is public petitions, and the first public petition is a public
petition request by Matt Finn to discuss current status of hard-shell
clam aquaculture in Collier County.
And ladies and gentlemen, if you've had a petition and you're
looking for a good time to leave, if you'd like, this is a good time to go
do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll wait for just a minute, okay.
Okay. I think we can begin now.
MR. FINN: Good morning, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
MR. FINN: Matt Finn, and I've spoken with you -- oh, good
morning, Commissioners, Matt Finn. I've spoken with you a few times
before about the hard-shell aquaculture that we're trying to start here
in Collier County.
The good news is, we're very close to being able to begin
planting our clams on the offshore leases. They finally finished the
surveying of these aquatic areas and are now in the final stages of
actually marking leases. At that point the state will issue us the leases,
so things have been moving along pretty well.
We have run into one small stumbling block along the way, and
that's with the land-based portion of this endeavor, which is the
nurseries. We grow up the very smallest hatchling clams into a size
that we can then take out to our leases. And this process started a
while ago, came in front of you for direction from the staff and
Page 25
May 24, 2005
yourselves. And at that point, it became apparent to sort of add this
into an overlay on the Goodland LDC, okay.
And at that point I thought we were -- had sort of gotten the
hurdle over. And when I'd asked -- the pointman for it, I think, was
Russell Webb. And I asked him, well, now at this point, after the final
okay and it was put into the overlay, what do I do when we're ready to
get going? Because there were still a number of other hurdles before
we got to that point.
And it was, well, go to the planners and get your permit, and then
you can start. And recently I did that a couple months ago and said,
what do I got to do to get this nursery operations going?
And it turned out it wasn't quite as simple as that. Because of the
wording in this overlay, I'm faced with -- actually each individual who
wants to do it -- and there's not that many individuals. We have a
$500 preapp. fee, a $4,000 permit fee for conditional use, 150 for fire,
300 for review, another 1,000 for advertising, a 1,600 for
environmental. Anyway, this adds up to a large sum and another
lengthy process, which I didn't really envision that we had to face.
And along those lines, I'm asking for a little help in trying to sort
this out so we can add this important piece of the puzzle into our
hard-shell clam aquaculture.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, Mr. Finn, as you probably
know, no action can be taken today on this issue under public petition.
It's only for the purpose of deciding whether or not we want to
schedule it for a regularly scheduled item on the next agenda.
MR. FINN: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 1-- if the commissioners don't mind, I'd
like to just offer a suggestion. Can staff get with Mr. Finn and answer
his questions about what has to be done, or is it something that the
Board of County Commissioners has to take action on?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, basically what happened, when we
did the overlay, when it went through the process and we added this to
Page 26
May 24, 2005
the LDC cycle at the time, we did the overlay for Goodland, and for
clam farming, the board directed that it be a continual use into that
overlay.
And what Mr. Finn is describing is the fees that you have to go
through in the advertising for continual use. I believe -- I believe Mr.
Finn is looking for clam farming to be a permitted use in the Goodland
overlay in that process, and that that will -- that will take board
direction, direct the staff to make a land development code change in
order for that to happen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And when -- what cycle would this be
in? When would it be considered? Cycle 2? And what is the date for
that?
MR. MUDD: And I believe Ms. Murray is coming forward to
give you that answer.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. MURRAY: Hi. Good morning, Susan Murray, zoning
director. Cycle 2, 2005, which begins June -- middle of June this year
and will end right before the holidays in November, if everything goes
according to plan.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it won't be submitted for
consideration until near -- well, December?
MS. MURRAY: Well, approved -- final approval will be
towards the end of November, so, yeah, early December. And the
change you're contemplating doesn't absolve the -- anybody who
wishes to conduct that operation from the site development plan
process, which I know Mr. Finn was throwing out a number of
different fees to you, and that included some of those that were --
consisted of the site development plan process and review as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Commissioners, what is your
pleasure? Would you like to have this come back? I'm sorry. We
have questions from Commissioner Halas and Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Coletta was first.
Page 27
"-'1'......,..."
May 24, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I can understand the
frustration. We're talking about a modest-income type business that
gets some of our unemployed fishermen back out in the water, and I
know this commission has been very sympathetic to this cause for
some time and supported every step along the way.
I'd like to see this brought back so that we can change it to
permitted use and we can put in there certain requirements, too, so we
can protect the integrity of the Goodland neighborhood as far as what
it would be, and I'd like to see it happen as soon as possible.
I know in the meantime we're going forward, and the seed clams
they're going to need to make this work will have to come from
outside the area. And to be honest with you, a good part of the
income-generating revenue that will come from this particular venture
is supplying the clam farmers with those seed clams.
And so, for a short period of time, we may have to endure
sending the business out of the county while we go through this length
-- through this process to November to be able to get the final changes
in place.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I just want to make sure that
we keep the overlay intact, so I would hope that people of Goodland
would also support your effort in making a change here in the LDC, I
mean when this comes forward in regard to LDC change amendments.
I believe staff said probably the soonest would be around
December that we can make the final change, but I just want to make
sure that the people out there in Goodland -- and I hope that you'll
work with them to make sure that the overlay that they -- that they put
in place, if you would change it, that they realize what your -- what
your endeavors are.
MR. FINN: That's quite true, and I'll be working with the
community association and the other group there, the Preservation and
Page 28
May 24, 2005
Coalition. I spoke with people in both groups, and from what I get --
they were under the impression that -- and because we had already
polled the community before the overlay, and pretty much everyone
was in favor of it.
They were under an understanding, like myself, we're ready to do
it, and the very few homes that, you know, we had clam farmers. You
know, we already had a list of conditions set up for it. It was just a
misunderstanding of what the wording meant.
Where, along the process of getting it in there if someone from
the staff had told me what the wording actually meant, I would have
said, well -- I would have red flagged it immediately and said, well,
that's not going to work, and we could have been working on this
process we're starting now a year and a half or two years ago,
whenever this had come through.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'd like to see this come back
as quickly as possible so we can start it right into this June cycle, if we
can.
And I think Commissioner Halas had a great idea to -- when you
come back -- when we get this thing together real quickly, when you
come back, make sure that you have, you know, community support
here so we don't have to worry about that at this end. You can come
in -- I mean, the community claims and wants to remain a fishing
village. This works out perfectly, but I think you need, you know,
something in writing to go along with that.
MR. FINN: Of course.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, 14th of June.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: In the interest of efficiency, let me ask a
question. It seems that the majority of the commissioners are in favor
of doing this. If we were to just provide direction to staff to include
this in the -- the LDC cycle, we could then debate at the point in time
when the staff's recommendation comes back in the LDC cycle rather
Page 29
----
May 24, 2005
than debating it twice, and we would not be delaying it then. Because
right now we'd be delaying it until sometime in June before we even
consider it. Is that acceptable to the commissioners?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It will save us some time, it will get it
moving ahead, and hopefully --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can we do that, David?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I think you can.
MR. MUDD: Oh, yes, you can do it, and you'll have time. It
will be in front of the productivity (sic) committee for two readings,
you'll get two readings, so it will get properly vetted and advertised.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, there'll be plenty of time for
public input. And I just would ask that -- that you, of course, get Mr.
Finn's input and coordinate with the stakeholders on preparing the
LDC --
MR. MUDD: Sir, if I said productivity committee, I meant
planning committee.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I know what you meant.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to make it official by
making a motion to that effect.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't know if we can make a motion on
this public petition issue.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it's ultimately the pleasure of the chair and
board if they wish to. You have a standard procedure, but there's
nothing that prevents you from departing from that procedure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then in that case, we'll make a motion.
Commissioner Coletta, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Without having this advertised,
brought forth as an advertisement?
MR. WEIGEL: No, you don't have to.
Page 30
May 24, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's going to -- LDC cycle itself
is the mechanism for getting it to the public.
I make a motion that we direct staff to move this forward to the
LDC cycle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What does he mean by the LDC
cycle? Is this going to be for June, or is this going to be on the --
MR. MUDD: Sir, there's a series -- once they start an LDC
cycle, they go through the DSAC --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- then they go to the planning commission, the
planning commission -- it's read twice there before they do anything,
then you get it twice. And then in November, December is when
you'll have your last reading.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. It's the guidelines that we
just discussed earlier that it will come to us no sooner than in
November, December?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, for final approval, if it gets that far.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There's no further discussion.
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?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Mr. Finn, I think we got it moving ahead.
Page 31
May 24, 2005
MR. FINN: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Item #6B
RESOLUTION 2005-208: A RESOLUTION FOR SUPPORT IN
THE FUNDING OF THE CONTINUING REHABILITATION OF
EVERGLADES CITY HALL - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next item is item 6B, and it's a public petition
by Marya Repko to discuss a resolution for support in the funding of
the continuing rehabilitation of Everglades City Hall.
MS. REPKO: Good morning. Can you hear me? Good morning,
Commissioners, Manager. I'm Marya Repko. I'm from Everglades
City, and we're looking for support because we're trying to fix up our
old county -- our old city hall building, which used to be the Collier
County Courthouse.
I don't know how many of you have been down to Everglades
City. It's this beautiful white imposing building on the circle.
Unfortunately, it was built 75 years ago and the pilings under the
building are made of wood, and we've had a lot of floods and a lot of
hurricanes, and these wooden pilings have to be reinforced or replaced
quite soon.
Now, a bunch of us in Everglades City got together and founded
the Everglades Historical Society, and we're helping the mayor to try
and restore the building. And the first thing we did was we had
T -shirts done, and Carol can model for you, and we've been selling
cards and bumper stickers and things like that.
And, however, it's going to cost us at least $400,000 to restore
just the foundation, and that has nothing to do with the upper floors
and the outside. And $400,000 is an awful lot of T-shirts.
So we're looking for support for the grant that we've applied for
Page 32
May 24, 2005
from the Department of State.
Now -- thank you.
MR. MUDD: We're trying.
MS. REPKO: That's a sketch of city hall. And if you don't have
them, I have spare brochures here.
We're looking for a grant to do -- to fix the foundation, is the first
step, from the Department of State, and the grant application has to be
in the 31 st of May. And we have support that is from some of our
public representatives in Tallahassee, but what we'd like is a resolution
from your board saying that you approve of our effort to fix up city
hall. We're not looking for money, not from you yet, you know, that's
some other time.
City hall is used now by the city. It also has a branch of the
Collier County library, it has a county clerk, a tax collector's
representative, a planning officer. So it is actually a county facility as
well as a local one, so we're not -- you know, it's not just a local issue,
and it's very historic because it was the original Collier County
Courthouse.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I think this is a noble
endeavor, that this requires nothing more than support from the county
as -- just to say we support their idea of a grant, just as well as we
would do Marco Island or the City of Naples. I would -- I would like
to see this come back as a proclamation or a resolution.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, there's one other piece of
information you need to know. And I received a letter -- ma'am, and I
don't mean to -- and I know it's your public petition. But I received a
letter from the mayor of Everglades City, from Sammy Hamilton, and
he basically said that their grant application has to be submitted before
May 31 st, and so I don't think we're going to have time to come back.
But what we can do is we can draft a resolution, if this board so
desires, have your chairman sign it, and then we'll draft a letter, like a
Page 33
""'I _'_"'''',.'.n__'
May 24, 2005
transmittal letter for the chair's signature, to transmit that resolution
for this grant application, if that's the board's desire.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would like to make that a motion, that
the chair have the authority to be able to sign the resolution and the
letter --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- supporting Everglades City.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Maybe I shouldn't tell you this, but I've
already sent the letter.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What a mind reader.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I have one written, so I was --
that's what I have my button on for, to ask if I could send one
separately as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They sent me a communication -- or at
least I've signed the letter -- but it was a letter of support for their
effort, not a letter which would give them any money, so it wasn't an
actionable item.
Yau want to send another one, is that what you want to do?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we're looking for a
proclamation, too.
MR. MUDD: The petitioner's asking for a resolution.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: A proclamation?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That sounds good to me. I'll be happy to
follow your directions and send a proclamation then, if that's what
you'd like to do.
Commissioner Fiala and then Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I was just going to ask you if
that was okay, if I could send a letter individually. I have it written,
but I didn't know if that would be okay, just a letter of support as well.
MS. REPKO: Thank you. I think it would probably help to have
both, because the letters of support are great and we can include them.
Page 34
~1'---~-~--~_'_'__
May 24, 2005
I'm trying to get all the paperwork done before the weekend, which,
of course, is going to be impossible. But I think that a fonnal
resolution from the board as opposed to individual letters would also
maybe help in Tallahassee, that you all consider it really serious.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The action is a proclamation
supporting the City of Everglades in their endeavor on this grant?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: I would suggest, Commissioners, if I may, that it
actually be a resolution --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Resolution.
MR. WEIGEL: -- which is a policy document as opposed to
proclamation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. How long has the -- that been
under the jurisdiction of Everglades City?
MS. REPKO: 1963.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is when you took that over?
MS. REPKO: Uh-huh. You moved up here in what, '62, the end
of '61 ?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And has there been restoration
done on this building through this period of years, since 1963 until --
MS. REPKO: There's been odd bits and pieces. I haven't been
around that long, I'm afraid, not here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. REPKO: I know that we had an engineering study, which
was funded by a grant, in the year 2000, which recommended that we
do something about the foundations, which, from what I understand,
we're going to have to rip up the floor, which means everyone has to
get out. All the floors have to come up, so it's a huge endeavor.
Page 35
~~---
May 24, 2005
And now we're finally getting around -- and I think it's probably
because there's so much more local support now. The mayor just, you
know, couldn't do it by himself.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioners, what is your
pleasure? Whose district is this in?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I made the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You have a motion to send a
resolution in support of their grant request.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I seconded that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala seconded the
motion.
Is there any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. It passes unanimously.
If someone will draft that letter and resolution for me, we'll get it
out immediately.
MS. REPKO: Thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me ask you a question. Who do you
want this to go to? You want it to go to--
MS. REPKO: I think it would be nice if it went to the mayor,
Page 36
May 24, 2005
send him a copy. We're supposed to gather all the things that we've
got, all the documents, support letters.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
MS. REPKO: And then include them with submission, with our
application.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good, thank you.
MS. REPKO: Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Fix his sign.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's okay. If it's Jim Coletta's sign, it's
all right.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, no.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Come on right up front and fix it
now.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I will. I'm not going to be able to
sleep tonight.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Hurry up. Beat the county
manager. Thank you so much for looking out for me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You're so welcome.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We meet twice each month. Ifwouldn't
mind coming here and straightening these out for us, we'd appreciate
it.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'll see if I can get the time, sir.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Thank you very much.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2005-209: APPOINTING ESMERALDA SERRATA
AS REGULAR AND CHRISTINE STRATON AS ALTERNATE
MEMBER TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMISSION -
ADOPTED
Page 37
~---
May 24, 2005
Commissioner, that brings us to item 9A -- excuse me -- 9B, and
that is an appointment of members to the Affordable Housing
Commission.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're going to 9B?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Seven and 8 are -- start at one o'clock.
That brings you to paragraph 9. 9A is at four p.m., so it's 9B.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. We have a committee
recommendation for Esmeralda Serrata.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute. I haven't finished yet--
and Frederick Deal, and Commissioner Fiala wants to ask a question
or make a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I would like to make a motion
and couple it with a couple brief comments. I notice that District 3
and District 5 had no one on this Affordable Housing Commission,
and we have Essi Serrata and Chris Straton requesting to be on this.
Chris is the chairman of the Affordable Housing Committee and for
the League of Women Voters, and I think these two people would be
wonderful candidates, and -- so I would like to nominate them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to not -- second
Commissioner Coletta's motion because it is the committee's
recommendation, and -- so I think that you had a motion on the floor,
Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I think Commissioner Coletta did
say so moved while I was reading the committee recommendation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: For Essi Serrata, you mean?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, for the two that were on
there. And, you know, I would gladly defer to your motion, but
Commissioner Henning does represent District 3.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And he would prefer to have -- let
me mention a concern. Right now we do have four members from
Habitat or that, you know, that work with Habitat closely. This would
Page 38
May 24, 2005
be the fifth member, if you have Mr. Deal on there. He's also a board
member for Habitat. And out of a nine-member commission they
would have five members. Do you think that that's a good --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, they're the advisory
board. We always get the last call on it. I think that they can think
independently.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you actually feel that --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The way I feel about these divisions in
the -- these disagreements about committee recommendations is I
believe we take all of the nominations and then vote on them
separately.
So, Commissioner Fiala, if you want to make a motion
nominating someone to be considered, then we'll take a vote on both
of them and we'll choose those who receive the highest votes. How
does that sound to you, okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you would like to recommend for
consideration Christine Straton?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Esmeralda Serrata?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then we have Commissioner Coletta's
nomination of Esmeralda Serrata and Frederick Deal.
There is a second to Commissioner Coletta's nomination. I will
second your nomination for consideration. So we will vote on them
sequentially.
We'll vote for Commissioner Coletta's nomination of Esmeralda
Serrata and Frederick Deal first.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I could just interrupt for just one
second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
Page 39
May 24, 2005
MR. MUDD: Sue, there's one regular and one alternate here that
they have to delineate.
MS. FILSON: Well, they're voting on the committee's
recommendation, and I do have them -- I have Esmeralda as a regular
member and Mr. Deal as the alternate.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Esmeralda would be the regular
member, even under your motion; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then all in favor of
Commissioner Coletta's recommendation, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And those opposed, signify by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And was that -- Commissioner Halas,
did you go with --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- that one? Okay.
Then let us vote on -- we have a vote of two to approve
Esmeralda Serrata and Frederick Deal and three opposed.
Now let's vote on Commissioner Fiala's nominations of
Esmeralda Serrata as the regular member and Christine Straton as the
alternate.
All in favor, please sig --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Commissioner Fiala,
what was your motion again?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: To nominate Esmeralda Serrata
from District 5 and Christine Straton from District 3, and I mentioned
Page 40
May 24, 2005
that she is the chairman of the Affordable Housing Committee for the
League of Women Voters who really wants to get involved with this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. No, I'm sorry. I didn't
mean to make you repeat it. I just wanted to make sure I understood
it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of Commissioner
Fiala's nominations, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 4-1, with Commissioner
Henning dissenting. And so Esmeralda Serrata is approved as the
regular member, and Christine Straton is approved as the alternate
member.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could I talk about this for just one more
second, please?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you start the timer, please.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second's up.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Say 23 minutes, no. I notice that the
composition of this committee includes four appointed members from
the city. This was established in 1991. And -- but I don't think -- four
appointed members from the city.
And I was just wondering, being that there isn't very much
affordable housing left in this city, if maybe at some point in time our
commission members might want to take a look at that and see if
maybe they wanted it to be distributed a little differently.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could I suggest that we --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not here.
Page 41
May 24, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. That we maybe schedule that as a
workshop topic for our next joint meeting, workshop meeting with the
city council and discuss that with them?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, good.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That might be a year from now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Doesn't have to be.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I know it doesn't have to
be, but it might be.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I mean, these people aren't coming
off any time soon. Do you want them off immediately?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, no, no. I was just -- I was just
throwing that into the hopper. I think--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I could.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've been attending the
meetings, and I brought up the same concerns that Commissioner
Fiala has at the meeting. You know, I couldn't believe that four
members from the City of Naples, who only contribute $150,000 a
year to the affordable housing effort, were there with the say.
But I'll be honest with you, the individuals that they selected are
-- I wouldn't have a problem with appointing them from the
commISSIon.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I would like to revisit that
when the time comes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I have nothing against any of
the individuals. I think they've appointed fine people. Yeah. That
wasn't my point at all. Thank you for bringing that up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. All I'm suggesting is that rather
than just unilaterally making a decision on that, we at least discuss it
with the city council.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's a good idea, yeah.
Page 42
--'--
May 24, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And then --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Throw the idea on the table.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, sure.
Okay, and we go now to?
Item #9C
COMMISSIONER HENNING'S REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION TO
ELIMINATE ORDINANCE 90-60 CREATING THE CITIZENS
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM - DIRECT STAFF
TO BRING BACK WHEN FINAL REPORT OF SMALL CITIES
CDBG ARRIVES REGARDING SUNSETTING
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 9C.
Commissioner Henning's request for discussion to eliminate ordinance
90-60 creating the Citizen Advisory Task Force (CA TF) for the Small
Cities Community Development Block Grant Program, as they have
completed the tasks described in said ordinance, and to amend
ordinance 91-65, creating the Affordable Housing Commission, the
AHC, to include the duty of controlling budget monies for the CDBG,
that's the Community Development Block Grant Program, and
furthermore, to act as the sounding board between the county and the
local communities.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioners, as Mr. Giblin
stated on this issue of the Small Cities Community Block Grant, that
the committee has done its duty, and it's really up to the Board of
Commissioners to sunset this committee through the ordinance.
And the second thing is not for the Affordable Housing
Committee to take control over the monies, it's more of, make
recommendations to the Board of Commissioners on where the
monies should be spent.
As Mr. Giblin explained -- this topic came up before -- that he
Page 43
May 24, 2005
does that already, so let's make it's official and just say, okay, this is
part of your duties, and we want your recommendations.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. As I was reading through
this, I thought -- I thought it was a great idea and so forth. But I was
thinking if -- just to throw this out, what about maybe seeing -- you
know, asking members from the Golden Gate Civic Association, the
Estates Civic Association and the Copeland Civic Association and the
East Naples Civic, where -- are the five target areas and who are
intrinsicly involved in their particular communities so they would --
they would maybe be able to make recommendations on their behalf,
and yet they would -- you know, you would need to have separate
people identifying needs, because you wouldn't want the same thing
going. And so I thought maybe that would be something for
consideration.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you're talking about
recommendations how to spend the CDBG monies, what is one of the
requirements is to go out to the community --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- through public meetings and
contact such community organizations like you mentioned. So that's
already in the works for them to give us the input of the community
needs; is that correct?
MR. BAKER: Denny Baker, for the record. That's correct,
Commissioner. We actually have eight public meetings associated
with the entire process.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's wonderful. I think it's a
good way for us. It doesn't all go to affordable housing though. It
goes to sidewalks and --
MR. BAKER: Many different -- several different categories.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Many, many things.
MR. BAKER: Job creation.
Page 44
May 24, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And I thought, just maybe
rather than having Affordable Housing Commission make those
decisions, maybe you'd want civic associations to make those
decisions as to recommendations or, you know, to send to us then.
MR. BAKER: Well, the Affordable Housing Commissioner is
an open meeting, it's a public meeting, and anyone can attend and
make the recommendations if -- and interact with the Affordable
Housing Commission in our presentation of those projects that we
think are worthwhile.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But before I go to the other two
speakers, I need to clarify something, Denny.
Commissioner Fiala raises a good point here. If you look at the
projects that have been funded by the CDBG funds over the past three
years, they range all the way from a prescription meds program to a
health care coordination program to a Fun Time Nursery to a senior
center addition in East Naples. There are a lot of projects that are
eligible building for CDBG grants that have nothing to do with
affordable housing.
And I -- I have some sympathy for Commissioner Fiala's concern
that if you place the staff responsibility for review and
recommendation in an affordable housing department, there is the risk
that some of these other -- other needs will not be addressed in favor
of affordable housing projects.
And I would like at least to get some assurance that we will have
balance in the evaluation and approval process, if we go there.
MR. BAKER: Yes, and I'd like to comment on that. We have--
we have -- actually we have priorities associated with HUD. And our
first priority, of course, is housing, and our second priority is job
creation, and that's where a majority of the dollars go to.
We can go up to 15 or 20 percent of -- 15 percent of our allocated
funds to go to social services, which are the kinds of things you're
talking about, Commissioner. Those will continue.
Page 45
May 24, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I had the honor to go out and
sit in for Commissioner Coletta in regard -- excuse me -- in regards to
an item where these funds, I believe, were very beneficial to the
people in Copeland.
And as you know, that community really needed some assistance.
And so I feel that the funds presently are being administrated (sic) in
a proper manner.
And so I think that we ought to -- I don't see where the system is
broke, and I think that we ought to continue where we are, especially
when you look at a community such as that way out in the far eastern
area, and it was basically forgotten. And I think that it was a big
endeavor.
The big thing that impressed me about this is the fact that these
people didn't just accept the money. These people got involved and
they got into a situation where they provided all the manpower. And
the amount of money that was spent was basically -- helped in
renourishing that particular area, but all the manpower was provided
by the residents of that community.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I couldn't have put it better
myself. I'd just like to recap on what Commissioner Halas said, that I
don't think the system's really broke, but I, like everyone else, have
never seen a perfect government system come down that couldn't use
some twerking (sic) along the way.
I think that the present way we have it set up meets a lot of our
needs. Ifwe need to expand it, I don't have a problem with it.
I'm kind of questioning whether civic associations are the best
way to reach this. Unless they have a problem in their own
neighborhood and they want to see improvements, it's very unlikely
that they would get involved. I doubt seriously you'd see the Golden
Page 46
May 24, 2005
Gate Estates Civic Association taking an interest in this. There's no
way you would ever be able to apply any of those funds to the Golden
Gate Estates area.
Now, I can understand Immokalee having a great interest in it,
Golden Gate City, Copeland, Everglades City, even to some point, but
I really don't know if the civic associations -- I mean, other than
notifying that the meetings are taking place. We've had numerous
meetings on this. And let's be honest about it, the final decision's ours,
and we make it every year.
But I'm willing to listen to any recommendations that this
commission comes up with to improve upon a system.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Denny, Cormac, you've read the
executive summary, correct?
MR. BAKER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What I'm stating, besides the
fact of sunsetting a certain committee, what I'm stating is that --
anything different than what you're doing today. It is different today.
So you don't -- you don't ask the Affordable Housing Commission
their input on CDBG funds?
MR. BAKER: Going forward -- yes, we do. Going forward --
the new schedule is -- that's starting next year is, we will be taking our
proposals to the Affordable Housing Commission for validation, for
input, and also for consideration if they had ideas different than what
we're proposing.
I want to point out that in the next cycle, one thing that we are
working to improve upon, which will be a major step forward, is to
bring to the Board of County Commissioners, along with our action
plan, the approved projects for review, something you don't see in the
present schedule. You see that you get a general category, then we go
out and we award the funds to specific proj ects.
You'll see those specifics projects at the time you approve the
Page 47
May 24, 2005
one-year action plan, which is a major step forward.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Let me ask the question
again, because I think we got two different answers.
MR. BAKER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In the executive summary,
excluding the Small Cities Block Grant, the recommendations to make
it actually a formal action, you're already doing today, right?
MR. BAKER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So this is not asking anything
more than what you're doing today?
MR. BAKER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's just for the Board of
Commissioners to formalize it?
MR. BAKER: That's -- we're fine with that. We're doing it
today. We will continue to do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, do you want the
staff to continue what they're doing today?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's all I'm saying.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it didn't sound that way from
the executive summary, that's why I said that.
May I ask, sometimes we -- sometimes a lot of the information
doesn't get this far, you know, maybe the final recommendation does,
but we don't know what was weeded out along the way.
Is there ever a way for us to then receive things that were weeded
out as well as -- you say the final decision is up to us, but many times
we don't know what the decisions -- what decisions were made
beforehand. We don't know--
MR. BAKER: Well, when we bring you the one-year action plan
for approval, it will have the specific projects that we have
recommended --
Page 48
May 24, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. BAKER: -- that the Affordable Housing Commission has
endorsed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, but --
MR. BAKER: And we'll also bring you those that are on our B
list and on our C list. Those that reach --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That would be good, yeah.
MR. BAKER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'd just like to clarify what action
is being taken here. The Small Cities CDBG Advisory Task Force is
expiring. Does any formal action need to be taken?
MR. BAKER: Yes, it will -- we have been audited by the State
of Florida. We have been a -- we passed with flying colors. We have
not received the official letter from DCA closing that grant. Upon
receipt of that letter, then it will sunset.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It will sunset without action by us?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, that's not true.
If you read the ordinance, it doesn't have a sunset. The board created
this committee, and the ordinance doesn't say that -- a starting date and
an ending date. So the board does need to take action on this
ordinance.
MR. BAKER: Yes, that's correct.
MS. FILSON: May I--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, ma'am.
MS. FILSON: -- say something? Normally when a committee
sunsets, they provide the board with a final report, and then that
triggers the certificate letters and so forth, and when they repeal the
ordinance that establishes the board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it would be premature to take an
action today --
MR. BAKER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- because you don't have the final
Page 49
May 24, 2005
report?
MR. BAKER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, let's assume that it does
sunset. Is formal action required to have the Affordable Housing
Commission review these?
MR. BAKER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So what is the legal process we
should follow, wait until the final report is done before we take action
on this?
MR. WEIGEL: I think that that works pretty well. In the
meantime, county attorney office, with staff, can kind of finesse the
edges of where we're going to need to go in the future, because, yes,
the ordinance, as exists, is sunsetting. If it's not going to continue to
exist in any form, then it will be repealed by the board at an advertised
public hearing.
If it's determined that through staff or ultimately with assistance
of some other committee or citizens group that functions are to be
performed coming back to the board, it may be appropriate to either
amend this ordinance so significantly that, in essence, the present
committee is -- has sunsetted, but this is amended in a form to
continue with a type of activity, or we may -- I think, again, working
with Denny and Cormac, we might come back and just indicate that
an ordinance is not necessary.
One thing I'll mention though in regard to Commissioner Fiala
mentioning that a concern about making the ultimate decision and
things potentially being weeded out ahead of time, to the extent that
staff may be doing some weeding out ahead of time, if that were to be
the case, would be cause for the county attorney office to review this
to make sure that their activities in doing so in the decision-making
process of the board is no different, maybe -- maybe likened to be no
different than the community in the first place and that those actions
must be -- may be required to be held in the sunshine.
Page 50
May 24, 2005
So there's the good and the bad with that, and it makes it a little
bit more of a cumbersome process, but it also creates the situation
where, if our staff is working in the stead of a committee that formally
did these kind of activities, that they would be providing the same
notice and accessibility to public for interaction, community groups
civic associations, anyhow.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have one public speaker. Before we
go much further and get into a motion, can we at least hear the public
speaker?
MS. FILSON: Your public speaker is Mr. Jeff Cecil.
MR. CECIL: Good morning. Jeff Cecil. I'm the chair of the
Affordable Housing Commission, and I'm really here just to really
kind of nod my head and say go to it.
When I first read what was in the offing, I thought we were being
asked to oversee a budget. We really don't want to do that. We think
the staff is well-trained and capable of doing what they do. They
oversee the CDBG monies very well.
We're not interested in social services, except as they affect the
affordable housing end users, and I think that as this county grows and
continues to age, we're going to see more and more need for that,
especially in those areas where the retirees came in the early '60s,
bought a house that was pretty much what they could afford, and those
prices have gone through the roof.
They're going to need social services and they're not going to be
able to move. We need to think about that.
I've been doing this, for your information, since 1989 with
National Church Residences. We have not been able to find a project
here because we can't afford the land. HUD does not give us enough
score based on what the county does or doesn't do for affordable
housing and for senior housing, so they're not around.
But I've been interested in affordable housing, senior housing,
and the problems of the less wealthy, so to speak, since 1989. So this
Page 51
-"f""<~,._-~~-,_.~---
May 24, 2005
is not new to me.
But the staff does a very good job. Do exactly what
Commissioner Henning proposes, and everything will continue to go
as it goes. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe the reason that this is
sunsetting is we no longer qualify for small cities; is that correct? So
that's why this whole thing is sunsetting, and now we're waiting for
the final audit to make sure that -- as we close this out. So that's the
reason for this. I just wanted to get that on record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So if I understand the situation, we're not
going to be able to make a motion to eliminate the Citizens Advisory
Task Force until the final report is provided, and at that point in time,
we can eliminate the task force.
But that still leaves Commissioner Henning's primary issue,
which is, who does the review? Now, we just heard that the
Affordable Housing Commission doesn't really want to get involved in
making those kinds of decisions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. What he said was, based
upon the executive summary, which I believe is convoluted, it's to
oversee the funds.
MR. CECIL: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That isn't what my intent --
MR. CECIL: We're more than willing to take a look at what the
staff is doing and advise them on it, but we don't want budget
oversight because that's not our role.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. So if I can continue --
MR. CECIL: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- is what the real intent is to
make recommendations to the Board of Commissioners of where the
funds should go.
Page 52
May 24, 2005
MR. BAKER: Can I say that a little differently, Commissioner,
and see if we can agree? We'll go to the Affordable Housing
Commission with our rankings and with our recommendation.
They may endorse nine out of 10 of our recommendations, and
we'll bring to the Board of County Commissioners with our one-year
action plan the results of that meeting telling the board that nine have
been approved AHC, one has not, and these are the reasons for it, just
like any other advisory meeting.
And if you choose to go with our decision, you give us that
direction. If you choose to go with our recommendation, you go that
direction.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you're doing that now?
MR. BAKER: No, sir. We will start that in the next program
year, beginning July 1st.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Whether we approve it or not?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Ifwe do not approve it,
that means we're telling the staff, don't go to the Affordable Housing
Commission.
MR. BAKER: Yes, and I agree with you, Commissioner. I'm
looking -- I'm agreeing with you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's see if we can bring this to a
conclusion.
MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, if I could add one more thing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can we do this all at one time when the
final report is complete with the Citizens Advisory Task Force? And
could I suggest that we table this until that point in time?
MR. BAKER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And then we can take both actions at the
same time? Does that make sense, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, that makes sense. The '06
CDBG is already allocated, and the board has approved it in the last
action, correct?
Page 53
-~---""".'.'"---
May 24, 2005
MR. BAKER: The board approved the general categories with a
one-year action plan. The specific applications are actually due this
week with a Friday deadline for that money.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And '07 review and
recommendations, it's not going to go out to the community until
when?
MR. BAKER: Till the fall.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And do you think the
Small Cities Grant will be sunsetted by then?
MR. BAKER: I'm looking for that letter in a matter of weeks.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, great. I think that's great,
but it's still -- we need to take action on both.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just -- I think it's better on
public funds, federal funds in this case, that we have public input.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, you're done.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Next item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then is there--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to table this?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, we have a motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How about direction?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How about direction, just what
you stated, direction to the board -- or to our staff to bring back, when
the grant funds of the Small Cities CDBG, or whatever you want to
call it, is sunsetted. Bring it back to the board, besides amend the
ordinance of the Affordable Housing Commission, and make a
recommendation to the Board of Commissioners how CDBG funds
are allocated.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Page 54
May 24, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're saying the same thing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning has made
a motion. Is there a second? I will--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala seconds it.
Any other discussion? The motion is to provide guidance to the
staff to bring this issue back whenever the final report for the Small
Cities Citizens Advisory Task Force is actually sunset and provide a
recommendation as to how the funds could be reviewed in the future;
is that right?
MR. BAKER: I understand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in -- 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 passes unanimously. We're going to
take a la-minute break.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if you'd -- before I turn off the
mike, I got a little note for announcement. The Haitian-America
Corporation kindly invites all members of this proceeding and all
guests to have refreshments out by the risk management building, and
that will be available till one p.m.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Really? Okay. I don't know if we'll
have time to get down there in 10 minutes and back, but maybe we
can hit it for lunchtime or something.
Page 55
--'""----,._~_.~^._--
May 24, 2005
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Good. Thank you very much.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
Item #9D
APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS TO SERVE ON THE
VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD AND TO SET THE DATE FOR
THE ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING - APPOINTING
COMMISSIONER HALAS, COMMISSIONER COYLE AND
COMMISSIONER FIALA TO SERVE ON THE 2005 V AB AND
COMMISSIONER HENNING AND COMMISSIONER COLETTA
AS AL TERNA TE MEMBERS. THE V AB ORGANIZATIONAL
MEETING IS SET FOR MONDAY, JUNE 20, 2005 AT 9:00 A.M.
TO SELECT THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATES FOR THE 2005 V AB
The next item on the agenda is 9D, appointment of
commissioners to serve on the value adjustment board and set the date
for the organizational meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would like to volunteer as an alternate.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'll be your second
alternate.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I had my light on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I know you did. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll be out of town at the
beginning of this, so I volunteer as an alternate.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we have two volunteers as alternates.
Does that mean the other three --
Page 56
-"----^._--~-
May 24, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Three.
MS. FILSON: I think we have three.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- the other three are the primary. All in
favor --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to volunteer for an
alternate.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Nice try.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, why didn't that work?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Feels like I'm on a train here.
MS. FILSON: Actually, we need three commissioners as
members; an organizational meeting has been set for Monday, June
20th at nine a.m. It will last approximately two hours.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: At what time?
MS. FILSON: Nine a.m., and it will last approximately two
hours, and that's when you select the special magistrates.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that is what day?
MS. FILSON: That will be Monday, June 9th (sic) at nine a.m.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: June 20th?
MS. FILSON: I'm sorry, June 20th at nine a.m.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And what is the meeting schedule
following that?
MS. FILSON: And that will be a two-hour meeting, and that will
be to select the special magistrates, then your other two meetings will
be to approve what they have heard, and the other two meetings will
be approximately a half an hour long.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And what months will they be held?
MS. FILSON: November.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: October 14th and November
15th.
Page 57
May 24, 2005
MS. FILSON: One in October, you're correct, Commissioner
Henning, and one in November.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll be here, so I'll do it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. FILSON: And I'll need three commissioners, two school
board members, and then two alternates for those who can't attend the
meetings to sit in.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, let me ask you a question. They
only need a quorum. They don't need everyone present for every
meeting.
MS. FILSON: Correct; however, it would be nice if the
chairman, which has to be one of the commissioners, were present at
each meeting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think that's a good idea.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And Commissioner Coletta just
volunteered to be the chairman of the committee, so now we need two
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, no.
MS. FILSON: No, they will be selected at your organizational
meeting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think there's an exclusion
clause. After you did it four years in a row, you're not supposed to be
on it. I remember reading it someplace.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who hasn't been on it as a
regular?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He's been -- have you been on it?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've been on it, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I've been on--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've been on it every year.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I believe Commissioner Coyle's the only
one who hasn't been on it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no, that's not true.
Page 58
May 24, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think Commissioner Coyle should
be on it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, that's not true. I've been on it at
least for two years.
MS. FILSON: As alternate.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no, no.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Absolutely not. I've been on it as a
primary for the first year, and then as an alternate for the second year.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: He's got too much of a glint in his
eye to be telling the truth.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it's really true. Really, it's true. I've
been there.
Okay. What do you want to do? We've got Commissioner
Henning volunteering as an alternate, I've volunteered as an alternate.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no, you need to be -- step up to
the plate.
MS. FILSON: Maybe we should select the commissioners like
we do the advisory board members.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How's that?
MS. FILSON: Well, select one commissioner and take a vote on
it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. I nominate Commissioner
Halas. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's vote on Commissioner
Halas. All right.
All in favor of Commissioner Halas, say aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor -- all opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 59
tl -----..--<-~
May 24, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (No verbal response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, which way did
you vote?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: With the majority.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So Commissioner Halas is
number one.
I also nominate Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no, no. I nominate the
chairperson.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There was too many.
MS. FILSON: I need one more.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed? Aye. Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll volunteer to take the third one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. FILSON: So I have Commissioner Halas--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it should be Commissioner Halas,
me, and Commissioner Fiala. And the other two--
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Henning and Coletta are
alternates.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, okay, all right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do we have it clear who is the
alternate here, Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Unfortunately.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll take it the following year if
Page 60
--"T-'-~'"
May 24, 2005
I'm going to be alternate this year.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate the break.
Item #9E
DISCUSSION REGARDING CREATION OF THE SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA 1-75 EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY - COMMISSIONER
COYLE TO SEND LETTER (AND CALL) TO THE GOVERNOR
URGING TO SUPPORT THIS EXPRESSWAY AND TO SEND
LETTER TO LEE COUNTY CHAIRMAN TO DO THE SAME;
FURTHER UPDATE IN SEPTEMBER'S MEETING WITH LEE
COUNTY COMMISSION
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next -- to the
next item, which is item 9E, and that is a discussion regarding creation
of the Southwest Florida 1-75 Expressway Authority, and
Commissioner Coletta asked for this particular item.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. The reason I asked for this
was because of the fact that we've all received the same letter from, I
believe it was the Chamber of Commerce in Lee County, and wanted
us to be able to move this forward, and for that I'm going to have
Norm Feders (sic) make the presentation to -- with your permission.
MR. FEDER: Commissioners, for the record, Norman Feder,
transportation administrator. I will tell you that Lee County is holding
a planning meeting with their board on June 6th. They're also getting a
review from their lobbyist legislative wrap-up, and I would
recommend, first of all, that probably staff and any of the chairman or
one of the commissioners maybe attend that Lee board meeting on
June 6th.
What I would tell you from the legislation is that we probably
don't want to wait, as some have argued, until after the turnpike
Page 61
May 24, 2005
authority finishes any feasibility study. Although that's an important
aspect of issues, I think there's more to be addressed and we need to
move forward.
But I'd also probably tell you right now, rather than establishing a
resolution in support of the legislation or appointing anyone, that it
might be best that you recommend that staff work with staff in Lee
County, try to develop maybe a mission statement, some goals and
objectives or maybe guiding principles, if not bylaws, to bring back to
a joint meeting maybe in September of the two boards to allow the
discussion -- and I think this kind of discussion will allow the issue to
come more in focus and then direct how you might establish your
resolutions and follow through on appointment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I'd be more than willing to
go to the June 6th meeting, unless we -- the chair would like to attend.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't know the purpose of going to the
June 6th meeting. What Mr. Feder has suggested is that we have a
joint meeting of the entire commission.
I think it's going to take a joint meeting of the two commissions
in order to reach agreement anyway, so I think we probably should let
the Lee County commissioners have their meeting on June the 6th,
sort out their issues, have our staff coordinate with their staff,
understand the issues, and then we can have our j oint meeting and
resolve the issues.
MR. FEDER: By all means. The only reason I was
recommending that was, not to in any way interrupt their meeting,
rather to hear their legislative wrap-up, which staff can do, and also to
hear and be able to bring that back to the board so staff can definitely
do that for the board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But I think anyone who wants to attend
the meeting can do so, I just don't think that we ought to be presenting
any official positions at that meeting until we --
Page 62
May 24, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What day of the week is this?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: June the 6th? It's the first week in June.
MS. FILSON: Yeah, it's a Monday.
MR. MUDD: It's a Monday.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I think that is what we need
to do is -- and I think it's already been discussed, so I'll just put my
two cents worth in, and I really believe that when we sit down and
start drawing up the bylaws and everything, that we need to have both
commissions together so that we can hash it out, and I think that's the
only fair way of doing it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Did you --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, I think that we should wait
until September, that we have a joint meeting with both commissions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But you want the staffs to be
coordinating in advance of that, right?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, definitely. Give direction to
staff that they coordinate with their staff so that we have some idea so
that you can come forth and give us some ideas of how we need to
address this whole issue when the two commissions finally get
together.
MR. FEDER: By all means. The only thing, for clarification,
I'm recommending that we, as staff, Lee County, Collier, develop for
the two boards for that September meeting, maybe a mission
statement, goals and objectives, and possibly the guiding principles or
bylaws.
Some could argue and may even on Lee County's side, that that's
for the board itself, since it's supposed to be an independent body, to
develop. I'm recommending this because I think it gives more of an
orientation to at least honing in on what we're trying to do and what
we're trying to accomplish, and it also gives the board a little bit more
direction into how the committee's going to function and what charge
Page 63
May 24, 2005
it's going to take.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta has a question,
but let me ask a clarification of what you just said, Norm.
The -- you're proposing that our staff and the Lee County staff
get together and develop some guiding principles. I think that's okay,
but before they're presented to anybody, you know, I think we'd like to
hear what those guiding principles are, right?
MR. FEDER: By all means. This is to be brought back to the
two boards and then discussed, as appropriate, in September.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I do believe that's the
correct direction. I can't offer anything more in addition to that. But
there is one thing.
I had a meeting with Mike Davis yesterday, and he wanted to
remind us of the fact that the governor has not had the bill in front of
him yet to sign it or decline signing, or veto it. And he recommended
that I ask you and that the commission direct you to write a letter to
the governor expressing the support of the Collier County
Commission for this bill and in hopes that he'll sign it, and also to
possibly contact the Lee County Commission for you to do that, and
to ask them to do likewise.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I will be happy to do that. I think that's
even more important in view of the fact we didn't get all the money we
needed in the federal bill. So I'd be happy to do that if that's what
you'd like me to do. Is there --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm nodding.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I've got three nods? Okay. I've got three
nods.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nodding over here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So what I'll do is send a letter to the
governor urging his support and also send a letter to the chairman of
the Lee County Commission asking them if they would now join us.
Page 64
May 24, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My suggestion is, if you do it, it
be an e-mail or phone call or maybe both, because we don't know
when it's going to appear on the governor's desk, and we need to
marshal our forces early.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'll give you a phone -- I'll give
you a phone number in the governor's office. I got a call yesterday by
the staff person that's moving this particular item to his desk asking
the opinion of the Board of County Commissioners on this particular
expressway.
Based on everything I've heard from you in the past and your
support by every member, I said that this board unanimously
supported that particular item. And I will get that phone number so
that you can make contact with -- well, I guess it's Ms. Berkels
(phonetic), and we'll get that -- I'll get you squared away on that phone
number. I believe it's soon to be signed or vetoed by the governor.
And I don't believe he's going to veto it. He's just trying to make sure
he gets the local opinion on it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good, good. All right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does that mean you want me to make
the telephone call rather than write a letter?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would do both, since it's your
time, not mine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. I'll do that.
Very well. Anything else we need to --
MR. MUDD: I'll set up that joint meeting for September. The
question I have for Norman, and he just left, Charlotte County was --
at one time was not necessarily going to be an active player at the first
part of it but could come on later. Is that the way the bill discusses it?
MR. FEDER: Yes. It provides for that option in the future.
Page 65
··_.......··_···-··_·_·_..~___~·__.·_".._"·._M".·~
~~.,.."-"------
May 24, 2005
MR. MUDD: Would you like to invite them to this joint
meeting, or do you want to just have it with Collier and Lee?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll tell you, since the initial-- my
reaction is, since the initial approval must be by the two county
commissions, Lee and Collier -- and I do know that there's still some
reluctance among some of the members of the Lee Commission, it
might be better not to complicate this with more boards. It might be
better to proceed with what we have. I don't know if the other
commISSIoners --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I agree.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's a good point, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I agree.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 2005-210: A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND
SUPPLEMENTING A RESOLUTION RE: FLORIDA GAS TAX
REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2003AND AUTHORIZING THE
ISSUANCE OF FLORIDA GAS TAX REVENUE BONDS, SERIES
2005 - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to a time certain
item, and this is item 10A. This item to be heard at 11 a.m.
It's a resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida, amending and supplementing a resolution entitled,
the resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida, authorizing the issuance of Collier County, Florida,
of $120 million in aggregate principal amount of Collier County,
Florida, gas tax revenue bonds, series two oh three (sic), in order to
provide funds for the principal purposes of financing the cost of
various transportation improvements within the county and
Page 66
--...,.,..---.
May 24, 2005
refinancing certain indebtedness;
Pledging the monies received by the county from the herein
described gas tax revenues to secure payment of the principal and
interest on said bonds; providing for the rights of the holders of said
bonds; providing for the issuance of additional bonds; providing for
certain additional matters in respect to said bonds; and providing for
an effective date of this resolution; authorizing the issuance of Collier
County, Florida, gas tax revenue bond series two oh five (sic) in an
aggregate principal amount of not exceeding $100 million making
certain covenants and agreements with respect to said bonds;
Authorize the awarding of said bonds pursuant to a public bid,
delegating certain authority to the chair for the award of the bonds,
and the approval of the terms and details of said bonds; appointing the
paying agent and registrar for said bonds; authorizing the distribution
of a preliminary official statement, and the execution and delivery of
an official statement with respect thereto;
Establishing a book entry system of registration of the bonds;
authorizing municipal bond insurance for the bonds; authorizing a
reserve account insurance policy with respect to the bonds;
authorizing the execution and delivery of a continuing disclosure
certificate; and providing an effective date.
And Mr. Michael Smykowski, director of the office of
management and budget win present. Hopefully he won't have to read
that again.
MR. SMYKOWSK1: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Michael Smykowski, OMB director. In addition, present is the
county's financial advisor from the firm of Public Financial
Management, Mr. Hal Conary, and Mr. Steve Miller from the firm of
Nabors, Giblin, and Nickerson who are serving as bond counsel on
this proposed revenue bond issue.
You will recall the adopted road financing plan contemplated the
issuance of two series of gas tax revenue bonds, the first of which was
Page 67
.",.., .__.,,~-----
May 24, 2005
issued in 2003. This is the second series that was contemplated and
approved as part of your road financing plan.
In addition, prior to proceeding with this issue, the board had
authorized the extension of the five- cent, six-cent, and nine-cent local
option gas taxes through December 2025 solely for the purpose of
providing the available capacity to support this second series of road
bonds.
The package is fairly lengthy. It has not -- it has not changed--
there is one minor change. In terms of flexibility, given that there is
potential for right-of-way issues to crop up or environmental
permitting on any of these road proj ects, you want to have maximum
flexibility to be able to use these funds on any of the available
projects.
We have -- there's an updated list that represents Mr. Feder's
updated five-year transportation work program that we'd like to
incorporate and replace the -- the project listing that was included in
the agenda package. This is the most current that is available.
And, again, bond counsel, as well as your financial advisor,
strongly recommend the flexibility that would allow you to use the
available funds on any of the projects in the five-year transportation
work program.
Again, to avoid any issues, should -- should you have
environmental permitting or right-of-way concerns on any of the road
projects, this would allow you to use the funds of any of those rather
than having a very narrowly defined list of projects.
With that, we are looking for the board's adoption of the
supplemental resolution authorizing the issuance of the series 2005
bonds, and other matters such as competitive sale of the bonds,
approving the attachments to the resolutions, as well as approving the
associated budget amendments therewith.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
Page 68
May 24, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Halas.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
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.
MR. SMYKOWSK1: Thank you.
Item #9F
RESOLUTION 2005-211: REAPPOINTING BILL NEAL, RONALD
FOWLE, MICHAEL VALENTINE AND PHILIP MCCABE AND
APPOINTING STEPHEN MAIN AS MEMBERS TO THE
BA YSHORE/GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE LOCAL
REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 9 -- brings us
back to paragraph 9, and we're on 9F. This item to be approved by the
Board of County Commissioners acting as the Community
Redevelopment Agency. It's appointment of members to the
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board.
MS. FILSON: And Commissioner Fiala is the chairman of the
Page 69
May 24,2005
CRA.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MS. FILSON: So you run this item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It's all yours, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I make a motion that we accept the
committee recommendations for appointment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor and a second
to accept the committee recommendations.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We're done, thank you.
Item #lOB
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN AGREEMENT FOR
SALE AND PURCHASE WITH MICHAEL E. WATKINS, HENRY
B. WATKINS III AND TIMOTHY G. CARROLL, TRUSTEES, D.
BROOKS JONES, AND GLORIA J. BORDEN FOR 26.77 ACRES
UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION
PROGRAM - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us -- now we shift to
paragraph 10. And that brings us to number lOB. It's a
recommendation to approve an agreement for sale and purchase with
Page 70
May 24, 2005
Michael E. Watkins, Henry B. Watkins, III, and Timothy G. Carroll,
Trustees, D. Brooks Jones and Gloria J. Borden for 26.77 acres under
the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program at a cost not to
exceed $2,177,000, and Ms. Alex Sulecki will present.
Now, Commissioner, I moved this to the agenda because of the
cost, not because it was controversial per se.
MS. SULECKI: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
F or the record, Alex Sulecki, coordinator of the Conservation Collier
program.
Since I'm not sure what questions you might have, I'd like to see
if you have questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Anyone have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There is a public speaker. Why don't we
call the first -- how many public speakers, just one?
MS. FILSON: I only have one, and that's Brad Cornell, and I
think only if we had questions.
Are you here, Brad?
MR. CORNELL: I am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, Brad is here. He's going to waive
in support of this issue, I think.
MR. CORNELL: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Coletta has --
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- has a question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, not a question. Taking Brad
Cornell's lead, I'm going to make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And a motion by Commissioner Coletta
for approval, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Is there any discussion?
(No response.)
Page 71
May 24, 2005
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.
MS. SULECKI: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next -- thanks, Alex.
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 2005-212: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
CONDEMNATION OF FEE SIMPLE INTERESTS AND/OR
THOSE PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY EASEMENT INTERESTS
NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAY,
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED FOR
THE FOUR-LANE EXPANSION OF COUNTY BARN ROAD
FROM DAVIS BOULEVARD TO RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK
ROAD - ADOPTED
The next item is 10C. It's a recommendation to adopt a
resolution authorizing the condemnation of fee simple interest and/or
those perpetual or temporary easement interests necessary for the
construction of roadway, drainage, and utility improvements required
for the four-lane expansion of County Barn Road from Davis
Boulevard to Rattlesnake Hammock Road.
It's capital improvement element number 33, project number
60101, and Mr. Calvert, the interim director of engineering for
Page 72
May 24, 2005
transportation, will present.
Commissioners, I would ask you to let Mr. Calvert put on the
record what he needs to for this condemnation particular issue because
of potential actions later. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
MR. CALVERT: Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, it's a pleasure being here this
morning. For the record, I am Eugene Calvert, the interim director for
the transportation engineering and construction management
department.
This resolution before you is to acquire property along County
Barn Road between Rattlesnake Hammock and David Boulevard.
This two-mile project includes the reconstruction of existing two-lane
roadway to a four-lane urban cross-section with sidewalks and bike
lanes on both sides.
In planning for this project, your board has previously adopted
various master plans in the year 2002, as well as the transportation
division's five-year work program, and the county's 2005 fiscal year
budget which allocates $15.8 million for the construction and 1.2
million for right-of-way acquisition.
Each of these board actions considered extensive planning data,
engineering data, and public input that I would like to incorporate and
make a part of this record.
Today upwards of about 17,000 vehicles per day use County
Barn Road. These numbers are rising and will continue to rise as a
result of our growing community.
The improved section requires a minimum width of about 125
feet of right-of-way. Additional right-of-way width is required along
certain portions of the road to accommodate alignment, drainage, and
stormwater treatment.
In regards to the alignment, the designers have maximized the
use of the existing right-of-way along the corridor; however, factors
Page 73
w<.·__'~_"_~'^>.__
May 24, 2005
due to stormwater drainage and treatment requires additional
right-of-way.
The proposed expansion involves acquiring additional
right-of-way from 38 property owners along the corridor. Staff win
continue to negotiate settlements without resorting to the county's
power of eminent domain; however, this resolution is necessary to
ensure the timely commencement of the construction work.
Besides alternative routes, staff considered traffic volumes,
public safety, the environmental conditions, aesthetics, neighborhood
character, constructibility, stormwater management, and cost.
Discussions with the South Florida Water Management District
indicates this project is likely to be permitted as it is currently
designed.
Public meetings have been conducted to share the 30 percent
design with the community and incorporate community concerns and
comments into the design. A public meeting will be held in July to
review the 60 percent design.
Based upon these materials in my presentation, I would ask that
you approve the recommendations as outlined in the executive
summary. Thank you. And I'll be glad to answer any questions.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Halas, 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.
Page 74
...-...----."-"--.-.-."..."..--
May 24, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hearing none, it is approved
unanimously. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Commissioner, on your agenda, 10D is continued to 14 June, and
I made mention of that at the beginning of the meeting.
(Commissioner Henning left the hearing room.)
Item #10E
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE SUPPLEMENTAL
AGREEMENT NO.5, TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT NO. 01-3195, IN THE AMOUNT OF $271,295 FOR
ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES PROVIDED BY CH2M
HILL, INC., FOR DESIGN AND PERMITTING MODIFICATIONS
FOR THE SIX-LANING OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD FROM
AIRPORT -PULLING ROAD TO COLLIER BOULEVARD,
PROJECT NO. 63051-APPROVED
Next item is 10E, and that's a recommendation to approve
supplemental agreement number 5 to Professional Services Agreement
number 01-3195 in the amount of$271,295 for additional engineering
services provided by CH2M Hill, Inc. for design and permitting
modifications for the six -laning of Vanderbilt Beach Road from
Airport-Pulling Road to Collier Boulevard, project number 63051, and
Mr. Calvert, again, will present. He's the interim director of
transportation engineering.
MR. CAL VERT: Thank you, again, Commissioners. Again, for
the record, Eugene Calvert from the transportation division.
This particular supplemental agreement is being brought before
Page 75
May 24, 2005
you to address some changes that have occurred in the project.
As you're well aware, Vanderbilt Beach Road from
Airport-Pulling Road to Collier Boulevard has started the construction
process. We are now in the process of -- because of the various
number of changes that have occurred throughout the design process,
we are bringing this before the board for an amendment to the
professional services agreement.
Any questions you may have, I'd be glad to answer.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion for approval by
Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Halas.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No public speakers, right?
MS. FILSON: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
Hearing none, it passes unanimously.
MR. CALVERT. Thank you.
(Commissioner Henning entered the hearing room.)
Item #10F
RECOMMENDATION TO DETERMINE FUNDING OF ITEMS
IDENTIFIED ON THE UNFINANCED REQUIREMENT (UFR)
LIST DEVELOPED DURING THE FY05 BUDGET PROCESS -
Page 76
May 24, 2005
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is number lOF, and I
need to -- a question I have for the board is, I received Commissioner
Coyle's UFR request yesterday. I assimilated it onto the sheet that I
have right here. I took the votes that looked like the majority, I
averaged what the majority wanted on a sheet and brought it here.
Now, at the board's pleasure, I can give you this sheet and you
can look at it over lunch and we can do it later, or we can do it right
now. But I don't mean to give you -- this is hot off the press that I had
this morning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So are you going to pass out
Commission Coyle's votes?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I'm going to pass out everybody's votes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think we can just do it now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't you display it on the screen.
Could you do that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Too many sheets.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just one sheet.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just one summary sheet.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can we see it?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: He writes too small.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, typed it too small. Okay. Well,
this isn't much better.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Here, I can hold it farther away
for you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Yeah, I can read that real well.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't want to pick on our chair,
but I have concerns about being able to review other commissioners'
Page 77
May 24, 2005
wish list and then filling out the priorities knowing what the other
commissioners' priorities are. I was hoping that we could have
reviewed all these at the same time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I guess you could ask the
chair whether, when he filled out his wish list, if he had looked at any
of the other commissioners' wish list.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The answer is, you bet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, okay, because I had the packet,
you know, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a flaw in the system, and --
but, you know, with that said, I don't think that's going to change
anything at this point if we decide to do it over. But I just -- I just
have concerns about that. But be that as it may, we might as well
make a decision today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Commissioner, if I could -- if I could at
least -- I think everyone has seen the list, and I've put the list on the
board so that people could see it.
I've annotated each commissioner's choice in priorities when I
received the choice in the priorities. There's one correction to your
list, and that's the 9/11 monument design siting. If you look at the
average amount when it comes -- when you average the three votes, it
comes out to $200,000. And you'll see the county manager's
recommendation is $100,000, and you look at me like I've got four
eyes.
I received an estimate from our facilities folks, and they basically
said that -- I think that the preliminary came in at around $89,000,
okay, so I believe $100,000 will do the design and siting for that
monument.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good.
MR. MUDD: So--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And what if you're wrong? What if--
Page 78
May 24, 2005
MR. MUDD: That's from our architectural firm.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What--
MR. MUDD: That's a hard number, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So he's right.
MR. CAMP: For the record, Skip Camp, your facilities
management director. That's a hard proposal. They're ready to go for
it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. What does it include?
MR. CAMP: It includes everything from working with the artist,
if you will, one or two meetings with the general public, meetings
with the officials, staff. It has to do with all the site development, the
construction documents, construction inspection. Construction
documents -- what else?
There was one other real important one. Oh, it has to do with
coordination with all the underground utilities, which is a major deal,
and of course, all the subs, electric, water -- there's a water feature
involved. The total design and development of the site and the
monument.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And if there are changes during the input
by the public, how do you accommodate that?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I have 10 percent on that. It came
in at 89, and I basically gave about $10,000 in addition to that at that
$100,000 price tag in case there would be a change.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right, thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what I did is -- or what Mike did
for me, Mike Smykowski, we took a look at the different votes based
on the dollars that you put on a particular item, and I just want to get
you to the last column or so, the last two columns on your matrix.
And we averaged the amount of money, if there was three
commissioners that put money in that particular issue, we averaged the
amounts and we brought the line all the way down to sum it up.
When you average those three votes or four votes or five votesa
Page 79
May 24, 2005
for a particular item and you add all those dollar amounts, it comes up
to be $5,566,856 of the monies that are available, which is $4,940,583.
That would mean that that final column is over budget by $626,273.
When I saw that yesterday, I said, okay, Mike, we'll take a look
at what they have, and let's see if we can find a way to try to work
things out. So that's where I came up with the county manager's
recommendation.
You'll see the first value is the same, second value I increased it,
because that was City of Naples' request, that they asked us for the
particular issue, so I put it there.
And I'm not saying my recommendation is correct, I just tried to
give you a proposal that would come in at the -- at the appropriate
amount of dollars.
I reduced the CAT facility by $460,253, and brought it in at 1.5.
I reduced the 9/11, as we just talked about, to $100,000. The next
item is the same. The 66 five is the same, the 12 seven is the same,
the 12 seven is the same, the 77 five is the same.
I reduced the general building repairs by $133,633 and brought it
in at 1.5. The 41 six is the same. I reduced -- I reduced the marketing
by $2,155. I kept the -- the traffic control for the sheriff deputies at 66
nine, it's the same, and I upped the road maintenance crew by about--
by about $3,000 to $101,000, and that kind of got you in the right
amount of money along with the recurring cost being below what it is.
But that's all I ask, sir -- sir and ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I see that -- and I agree with
everything that is on this sheet. My biggest concern is, as I stated
before, that we take on more responsibilities for museums and
operations of that nature, and yet we don't do any real funding to catch
up with the cost.
I believe we have like $2.7 million right now that are still out
there outstanding for all of our museums. So I'm hoping sometime or
Page 80
May 24, 2005
someplace we can address this, because I believe it's really part of not
only the culture of this particular area, but also it's a tourist attraction.
So I see that we're putting 400,000 towards the Naples Depot, but I'm
hoping that eventually we can have funding or come up with certain
funding for the other projects that we have within the --
MR. MUDD: Sir, I'm -- in the 2006 budget, I'm looking to fund
about $500,000 of the 2.7. You haven't seen those yet because it's part
of the '06 budget.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: What I've asked -- what I've asked Mr. Jamro, the
director of museums, to do for me is over a five to six-year period of
time, to take that $2.7 million and break it down in digestible doses.
We can't do it all in one year because we just can't afford it.
But let's have a plan to get it resolved so that it's done on multiple
years so that this list just doesn't -- we don't just kick this can down
and things get worse.
So I've asked him to prioritize the project over a five-year period
of time to get it to me in about a half a million dollar doses so that we
can get it -- we can get it worked on, and by about 2011, have it
finished.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. I appreciate that. I
think that's something we need to address. But it seemed like we were
gaining more assets, but we weren't doing anything with the stuff that
we had, and that was becoming a concern.
MR. MUDD: It's a concern of mine, too, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And then for your knowledge, the TDC
did vote unanimously to provide the full 22 percent allocation to the
museums for this year, so they'll be recommending that to you, so that
should help a lot.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: These items will come back for
Page 81
.-. ...,..~~.,~.~,---"-_......~.,,._,...~
May 24, 2005
individual approvals on the agenda, or you just start slinging out
checks?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. Sir, for instance, if you're going to -- the
Naples Depot operation, we'd come back to the board, we would put
that in the budget for museums, and he would start working those
dollars to get the things fixed on the Naples Depot.
The Pulling property, we'd come back to the Board of County
Commissioners to have you write -- for us to write the check to the
City of Naples for that particular issue.
The CAT bus system, before we do anything, we'd have to bring
that particular item back to the board for your approval. I think part of
it's going to be acquisition of property, and it might be build a
building. So yes, we would come to the board with that because
they'd have to go out for design and whatnot.
Now, we are taking a look at an alternate facility right now that
might be able to do all of those things, but it would still be acquisition
of the property, and they'd have to come to the board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The reason I ask that is, I
think it's important for us to have a discussion about the Fleischmann
property, because one of the proposals is to use that for a canoe launch
facility, which, you know, we're -- if we fund the Pulling property for
the same thing, are we using it -- using it wisely? So I guess that's a
decision for another day.
The second thing is -- right?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yep. The second thing is, do
you really want to award the sheriff to do his job? And, you know,
my concern is, providing funds for overtime monies for enforcement
of right-of-way parking or obstruction of the road.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My concern is, if we want to start a
Page 82
-"-''"1'''>"-'---~--'-
May 24, 2005
shuttle service and you've got people sitting on a shuttle bus and they
can't go anyplace, I think that's a concern, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we want to award the sheriff
extra money for doing his job?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, if the sheriff said that he can't
get it done on normal work hours where it ties up two deputies over an
eight-hour period, I'm really not sure how we address that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No offense.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. Obviously
there's not enough money in the world to ever satisfy every one of our
needs. Every commissioner has a different opinion about how we
spend the last bits of the pot to be able to cover some unfunded needs.
I think you did an excellent job of coming up with a chart going
across and polling the commissioners, and I think your
recommendations are sound. I mean, if I had my way, I'd draw them a
little differently, but of course, we could discuss this till the sun goes
down tonight.
And so I'm going to make a recommendation -- I'm going to
make a motion that we follow the county manager's recommendations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There's a motion by
Commissioner Coletta to approve the allocations as described by the
county m~nager with the adjustments that were read into the record.
MR. MUDD: Sir, this is basically your recommendation on what
you had funded, and I changed the numbers a little bit, so I brought it
into the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you've read that into the record?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, I read that in.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've told us what those are.
So -- now, commissioner Fiala, you have a question?
Page 83
May 24, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I just wanted to --
Commissioner Henning had said something about, do we want to hire
the sheriff to do his job? I think what we're doing is actually reserving
these officers.
If they -- if they were on duty that day, they would be sent to
wherever they needed to go in the county, whereas, we're saying we
want these guys here at this specific time and on these specific days,
so we're actually, in my opinion anyway, hiring these people. And I
think it's a good idea being that we've had so many problems in that
area.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. No public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Coletta for approval, a second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning votes in
opposition.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No offense.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes 4-1.
Item #10G
RESOLUTION 2005-218: RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHAIRMAN TO
ENTER INTO A LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM (LAP)
AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
Page 84
May 24, 2005
TRANSPORTATION, ON BEHALF OF COLLIER COUNTY, FOR
RECEIPT OF FEDERAL DOLLARS FOR TAMIAMI TRAIL
ENHANCEMENTS AT THE PORT OF THE ISLAND
COMMUNITY - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item lOG, and that
is a recommendation to authorize Board of County Commissioners
chairman to enter into a Local Agency Program Agreement with the
Florida Department of Transportation on behalf of Collier County for
the receipt of federal dollars for the Tamiami Trail enhancements at
the Port of the Isles Community, and--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Are there any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 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?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, did you sign up to speak on that last item?
I know you were interested in it. But the board just approved it, if
Page 85
May 24, 2005
you just wanted to know what they just did, okay? So that was good
news as far as you were concerned, okay?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: May I have one comment?
MS. FILSON: I don't have a speaker slip.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You'll have to come up to the podium.
You'll be restricted to five seconds. Just kidding.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. -- Commissioner
Coletta. You're the one that got me here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Since we already
took the vote, it's fine to say that now.
Item #10H
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS WAIVE RE-PAYMENT OF FLEET
EXPENSES, TOTALING $121,100.82, WHICH ARE DUE FROM
ATC/INTERLITRAN INC. AND SUPPLEMENT THEIR
INSURANCE PAYMENTS UP TO $187,000 - FUNDING TO BE
AVAILABLE TO PAY THE EMPLOYEES IN THE AMOUNT OF
$75,000.00 UNTIL THE JUNE 14, 2005 BCC MEETING, THEN TO
BE BROUGHT BACK WITH MORE DETAILED INFORMATION
- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item,
which is 10H, and that used to be 16B 12, and that is a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners waive
repayment of Fleet expenses totaling $121,18 -- excuse me --
$121,100.82, which are due from ATC/Intelitran, Inc., and supplement
their insurance payments up to $187,000, and Ms. Diane Flagg,
alternative transportation modes director, will present.
MS. FLAGG: Good morning, Commissioners. This issue is to
receive the board approval to waive the Fleet expenses and insurance
Page 86
,t-'.,'"___.
May 24, 2005
payments, as the manager indicated.
The county contracts with ATC and Telitran to manage the
paratransit services. ATC had to cancel a -- their contract with their
primary provider previously because of significant client issues, and
they subsequently contracted with Caring for Kids. Because of
significant increases to operating costs, fuel, maintenance, and
insurance, in addition to some other costs, Caring for Kids has
requested assistance in continuing to provide this paratransit service.
We looked at -- we took this issue to the local coordinating
board, which is the board that is appointed to oversee paratransit
services, and they recommended that the county waive the Fleet costs
up to 130,000 and supplement the insurance to 187.
The -- additionally, we took this to the MPO board, and they also
recommended approval. And the recommendation, our options that
we looked at was to ask A TC to go and find another provider, that we
wanted to -- them to stand by the contract.
They indicated to us that the only provider that expressed any
interest at all in providing the service was the previous service
provider. And so we've asked Les Solberg -- who is here and who can
answer any questions. Les Solberg is the general manager for A TC.
MR. SOLBERG: Thank you, Diane. Good morning,
Commissioners.
As Diane said, mentioned, there has been many cost increases
that were not expected to hit as hard as they did. Fuel and
maintenance has increased $156,000, insurance has increased by
$127,000. There's so much liability in the paratransit work that this is
becoming a problem statewide, not just here in Collier County.
But I'm here to answer any questions that you may have. Like
Diane said, the only carrier that has shown any type of interest of
coming back into the system was the previous carrier, who there were
many problems with. Caring for Kids offers a quality service,
well-trained drivers, very courteous staff, and I hear nothing but good
Page 87
May 24, 2005
things about the job that they've been doing.
But I'm here to answer any questions that you may have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You said that one was the fuel cost.
I believe you said a cost overrun of about 156,000.
MR. SOLBERG: And maintenance. That's fuel and
maintenance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Fuel and maintenance. Can you
explain why you have $127,000 in cost overruns in insurance from the
original contract?
MR. SOLBERG: Again, the original insurance when they first
started was 130,000. When that contract period ended, the cost went
to $250,000 for paratransit vehicles.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you give me an idea of when
you first negotiated the contract for insurance, that was 127,000, and
in the period of time that it escalated up to, what'd you say, 257?
MR. SOLBERG: 250,000.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. SOLBERG: We did not negotiate that. That would have
been with Caring Hearts. But, I mean, insurance in paratransit service,
because of the liability with the lifts, the wheelchair lifts and just the
clientele that you deliver service to, insurance levels have skyrocketed
statewide.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what was that period of time?
Do you have that down?
MR. SOLBERG: No, I don't. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That would be interesting to find
that information out, what the period of time was that inflated value
increased.
MR. SOLBERG: We do have documentation that -- you know,
we have gone through Caring for Kids' books, and we've done a
complete analysis of their revenue and their expenses, and it's
Page 88
May 24, 2005
documented that that's how much the insurance is costing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: One last question here, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So the end result is basically,
you're looking for about $317,000 in bail-out money, is basically what
,
we re --
MR. SOLBERG: To assist where we're at, because these were
uncontrolled costs, these were unforeseen costs. And one of the other
problems that we're about to face is that during the summer months,
the revenue's going to be going down. There's going to be fewer trips,
but yet the expenses are going to remain constant because now you're
going to start having problems with the air-conditioners, and you're
still going to have to maintain the vehicles, pay the staff, and still offer
the same benefits to the staff.
So we're going into a slower period now, which is going to be a
difficult time also.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me pursue a little bit about the total
budget for this program. What is the total budget?
MS. FLAGG: The total budget is right at 1.3 million.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: One point three million. How many
people are being served by this program?
MR. SOLBERG: I just started down here about two weeks ago,
and I do not have all those numbers yet. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well--
MR. SOLBERG: We will be working on the annual operating
report for the state. That's going to be -- the fiscal year end is June
30th, so we'll be able to come back and give you all of the information
about the annual operating report which will tell all of the type of
riders and how many riders and all of that information.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And how much do the riders pay?
MR. SOLBERG: It varies on their income levels, and it also
Page 89
May 24, 2005
depends on the program that they're riding under, because we do
Medicaid transportation and DT transportation, the disadvantaged
transportation, and there's various service agencies that we provide
service. Some do not require any type of a co-pay at all. The agency
pays for the full amount.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And what is the $2.50 per trip brokerage
fee that you pay to -- that's paid to you?
MR. SOLBERG: That's for -- that's the money that we make on
a trip. That's so that we -- we take the reservations, we do the billing,
we do the collections, and we reimburse the carriers, and that's the fee
that we charge to cover our expenses. Our facility and all of our --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that fee is paid by whom, the people
who ride or -- is it included in the fee for people who ride, or is it part
of our contract payment to you?
MR. SOLBERG: Well, it's included in the fee per trip. It's a per
trip, per client fee.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think I raised this same question
maybe a couple of years ago, and I'm really concerned about giving
people additional supplements on contracts when they're unable to
perform under the contract that they committed themselves to.
I do understand that unanticipated events can occur. But before I
could vote to support this additional payment of $300,000, which by
the way doesn't seem to be the only item, because there's another item
right behind this one that has a similar situation, I'd like to see the total
budget. I'd like to understand how many people are receiving service,
how much is it costing us to provide the people this service, so we can
make some informed decisions about what our alternatives really are.
And how quickly could we get that?
MR. MUDD: Sir, if you'd like to continue this item till the 14th
of June, we can provide you that information.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I would like to do that. Do we
have enough members on the --
Page 90
May 24, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Fiala. Did you have another question,
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. I was just going to make the
same suggestion you did, Chair.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that's great, except are we
going to -- being that they're operating at a loss every week, are we
going to lose them?
MS. FLAGG: Caring for Kids has indicated they will end their
service. In answer to your question, George is here from Caring for
Kids, and he can give you the specifics as to the number of people
transported per day by Caring for Kids and answer any other questions
that you have there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, just so that there's no confusion,
this isn't a program that is designed to transport kids. Caring for Kids
is the company that is administering the service.
MS. FLAGG: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I just don't want the public to get -- to
begin to think that we're depriving children of transportation
somewhere, although there are some children involved in this process.
Okay. The Caring for Kids is the company that provides the -- is
the subcontractor for A TC?
MS. FLAGG: Transportation, right. Caring for Kids is the
subcontractor to A TC.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: A TC, yes.
MS. FLAGG: Caring for Kids submits -- they do -- A TC does
the reservations for the trips, and then Caring for Kids transports the
people in the program.
When the county -- in terms of the county budgets -- and we
Page 91
May 24, 2005
budgeted about 1.3 million this year, and the cost of the -- this cost
will be within the FY -'05 budget; in other words, that the FY -'05
budget will not be exceeded to make this payment in what was
budgeted for FY-'05.
Caring for Kids did indicate this morning that they cannot
continue to provide service.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Beyond what point in time?
MS. FLAGG: She said two weeks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, may I say one
thing?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have a contract with
somebody that goes beyond two weeks, and I just want to make that a
point. This issue could be settled other ways besides giving more
money.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I agree. If you have information on the
number of people that are served, please give us that briefly, and then
let's make a final decision.
MR. RHODES: Yes, sir. Good morning, Commissioners. Name
is George Rhodes, and I'm the director of operations for Caring for
Kids. During high season, we transport anywhere from 580 to about
700 passengers. It fluctuates, but that's a good barometer for high
season. Then we get into --
MR. MUDD: Sir, is that a week, a month?
MR. RHODES: Day. A day, I'm sorry, a day. And then when
we get to the summer, as we're approaching now, it goes down
significantly to -- we're doing right now about 500, but we will
eventually see 400 and maybe even 380 a day.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then I still would like to see the
full figures. And if we can do this in two weeks -- can we do it the
next meeting in June, or is that possible?
Page 92
May 24, 2005
MR. MUDD: Fourteen June.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Fourteen June.
MR. MUDD: We'll have that information you need, sir, but
that's more -- but that's more than--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: More than two weeks.
MR. MUDD: -- two weeks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What's the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Definitely, I can't make a decision
on -- with the information that we have today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
Commissioner Fiala, you had your light on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just a question. Diane said that
we had the money in the budget, is that it, but the contract didn't meet
the budget? I'm --
MS. FLAGG: In other words --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can you clarify for me.
MS. FLAGG: -- what the situation is, we have the money in the
FY-'05 budget; however, when Caring for Kids made their projection
on the provision of services to take over for the other provider, they
made projections of the insurance. Well, the insurance -- they
proj ected how much the insurance should cost.
They were -- the projections were 127,000 short because their
insurance was actually significantly more than what they had
projected when they said they'd do the service. The fuel and
maintenance cost since they've taken over is $156,000 more than they
projected when they said they would take over the service.
And then for the remaining months of July, August, and
September, because their expenses stay the same in terms of labor but
their trips drop off -- and that's how they get reimbursed is through
their trips -- that comes to a total of 349,000.
What the recommendation was is to only augment their shortfall
up to the 187- and the 121- so that it would stay within the current
Page 93
May 24, 2005
adopted FY-'05 budget that we're working in right now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And did they take over in the
middle of the year?
MS. FLAGG: They took over in the summer of last year.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So was that in the middle of the
contract or in the --
MS. FLAGG: The contract ends September 30 of this year.
There's four months left of the contract.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we bring this
back on June 14th.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Halas.
I'll second the motion.
Any further discussion?
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just one suggestion. If you
could possible make appointments to visit each commissioner between
now and then, I think we can bring this to some resolution when we
meet the next time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any further discussion?
All in --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, one more --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Caring for Kids, will they abide by
this until our next meeting, understanding that we need people to talk
to us and that we just needed more information?
MS. FLAGG: Commissioner, there is, as Commissioner
Henning indicated, a 60-day out on the contract. In other words,
there's a period of 60 days. Caring for Kids said this morning two
weeks. The president is here that can maybe answer that question for
you.
MS. TEJERINA: Almost good afternoon, Commissioners. My
Page 94
May 24, 2005
name is Betty T ej erina, and I am the president and executive director
of Caring for Kids. Originally what we do is we take care of
medically complex children. I just want to clarify that, because a lot
of people are getting confused a little bit by our name and what we
actually also do in the community.
We were providing transportation for medically complex
children prior to jumping into helping the community and the entire
community's transportation. That's the main reason why we were
asked to contribute to this proj ect in the community.
We -- I think that besides what -- I want to make a statement
today is that besides the increased expenses, I believe what's happened
here also includes the fact that when the budget was given to the
commissioners or to the county -- and note, I am not a financial
person. I'm a clinical person.
But when the budgets were submitted from Caring for Kids as to
what it would cost to operate this service to the community, I
understand that the management fees that go in with, you know, the
person -- you know, ATC manages the program, they make the
reservations, like Les explained.
Those fees were not included in that budget. And we probably
wouldn't be here today if those were -- had been included. We
wouldn't have made any money, Caring for Kids would not have made
a profit, but we wouldn't be losing like we're losing.
So basically, you know, the bottom line is, they are absolutely
correct, there were increases in insurance and gas and maintenance.
We probably wouldn't be here today, we probably would not be
making a penny on this project because, you know, we're serious
community people here, if the management fees had been included in
the budget.
Because what has ended up happening is those managements fees
for A TC to survive -- and rightly so. I mean, they have to run an
office, they have to pay a reservationist, a manager, those fees are
Page 95
May 24, 2005
coming out of the providers monies of the monies that were intended
to provide services to the clients.
So, in turn, what I'm trying to tell you is if that had been
included, yes, we wouldn't have made a penny in this proj ect, but we
probably wouldn't be out here begging.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you say that the fees for the
management company, A TC, were not included into the total budget?
MS. TEJERINA: Somehow they were left out, from what I
understood, and I think that was -- there's writings to that. I don't have
them with me. But there has been e-mails back and forth regarding
that between A TC and the county staff and us, and as well as has been
solidified through the LCB that that did happen.
It's -- you know, it's not to blame anybody, but it's just for you to
understand that besides the increases in maintenance and gas and all
this and that, you know, that is an issue. You know, maybe Diane can
speak to that as well. But it's not pointing the finger at anybody by
any means, because, you know, I have high respect for the county
staff, I have high respect for all of you, for A TC, we've all worked
extremely well as a team, and we are providing the heck of services
(sic) to this community.
So -- and I really have to tell you, we do not want to cancel this
contract. We love doing what we do. We do it well, but the funding
is not there. I cannot make payroll two weeks from now. And, you
know, there were some monies coming in in terms of covering some
of the insurance, and apparently that has been held up too, and
basically I cannot pay, you know, and my drivers are not going to
work for free. I wish they would.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There's a motion on the floor.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
And opposed?
Page 96
May 24, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There are -- the motion fails on a
vote of 3-2.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I make another motion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That we fund this until our next
meeting, the proposal, what's being asked, fund it for -- until our next
meeting, and -- because I need some more infonnation, but I don't
want to see anybody -- I don't want to see this program being lost, but
also I think when you sign an agreement, you need to be accountable
for that agreement.
MS. TEJERINA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I need to understand the
management fees that was not included and everything else. That's
my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And there's a second by Commissioner
Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas, you had a --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I'm just surprised that staff
didn't give us additional infonnation when this was placed on the
consent agenda. I had some concerns with it, and I was going to ask
that this be pulled also.
I really feel that you -- when staff puts this stuff on the consent
agenda, that you need to make sure that all the background
infonnation is here. I don't think we'd be in this position today. And I
sure can't approve it on -- today because of the fact that I asked for
some additional infonnation that was not readily available, and I think
Page 97
._-'~'H.._..,
May 24, 2005
we really need to do an in-depth study in regards to what's really
happening.
And I hope that you will take the offer in regards to seeing each
of us commissioners and having a detailed -- detailed form in regards
to exactly what was -- been proposed and where we are today and how
we got there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: David, you had a comment?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, I did. Thank you.
Mr. Henning has made a motion, and I wanted to make sure that
the county staff is -- has an understanding of how to apply that
motion.
It appeared to be funding for the next two weeks, or, perhaps, to
the next board meeting, June 14th, and that may need to have a
dollar-and-cent figure or some kind of definite statement so that you
can administer that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think he said funding at an increased
level for the next two weeks, didn't you, to help them cover the costs,
so that -- and would it be appropriate to -- at least for the budgeting
guideline, to take the costs that are included -- the cost shortfalls,
revenue shortfalls, included in our executive summary and allocate a
pro rata portion of that for the next, what is it, 15, 16 days?
MS. FLAGG: We could -- what they have is, if you look in
Exhibit B of the executive summary, they have $70,500 of insurance
that they were requesting payment in May, and then another 23 five in
June. There's four months left to this contract.
So their shortfalls have been accumulating, based upon meeting
multiple times with the local coordinating board about all these issues,
meeting with people talking about the contract, doing a full financial
review and all the background work, and then waiting -- taking it to
the Metropolitan Planning Organization, providing an overview at the
MPO meeting also.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, 1-- if I remember -- if I understood
Page 98
May 24, 2005
your motion correctly, Commissioner Henning, you were willing to
make sure that they don't lose any money between now and the time
we bring this issue back. We're not yet talking about covering all the
shortfall that's occurred so far year to date; am I correct?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we need to arrive at a dollar
figure for that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me ask you, will they cancel
their insurance, being that it sounds like the 70,000, they'll just be like
three months in arrears, and I know insurance is not easy to get,
especially in -- in areas like this where they handle highly sensitive
people.
MS. FLAGG: They have paid the 70,000 in insurance, but that
money that they -- because they can't function without insurance, so
they have paid that 70,000, and what they were going to do with that
70,000 is to pay some of the other invoices that they had outstanding,
but the insurance is in force.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What I understood the provider
saying is, she can't pay her employees until we vote on this issue. So
if that's a real issue, why don't we allocate enough funds to pay the
employees until the Board of Commissioners gets enough information;
is that a problem?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. I think that's a good idea, but maybe
we can simplify it even more. I think we were told that there wouldn't
be a problem -- would not have been a problem this year if the $2.50
franchise fee or management fee had been included. So what would
happen if we were to agree to pay an additional $2.50 per--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Rider?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- rider for the next -- what is it, 16 days,
1 7 days until the next meeting?
MR. MUDD: Twenty-one days.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Twenty-one days.
Page 99
May 24, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. See, I have a problem
with that because our staff hasn't responded to the comment that it
wasn't included into the contract, and maybe somebody else is getting
that money. And I just don't want to double dip there.
MS. FLAGG: Commissioners, if I could clarify what this 2.50 is.
The county receives an invoice for a trip. So if you pick up an
individual in a wheelchair and take them to dialysis, there is a set fee
that the county pays for that trip. From that set fee, A TC gets 2.50 of
that trip.
So it's not -- what transpired was, when A TC submitted the rate
increase, they took Caring for Kids' budget that Caring for Kids had
prepared, they neglected to put their 2.50 management fee on top of
that before they presented for the rate increase.
So that 2.50 is something that really doesn't impact the county.
The county has said, we pay this much for this trip, and that 2.50 is
within the amount that we pay for the trip.
The issue here is that Caring for Kids -- the biggest issue is that
when they did their proj ected budget, that these insurance, fuel, and
maintenance costs have greatly exceed what they had anticipated for
their budget.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But it's also because the management fee
wasn't included in their overall budget.
MS. FLAGG: ATC has acknowledged that when they presented,
this is what we need the county to pay for a trip, that they had
neglected to include their 250 -- excuse me -- $2.50.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But why isn't ATC involved in helping
Caring for Kids recover from this also?
MS. FLAGG: ATC has -- and Les can speak to that. But ATC
has negotiated some of the Immokalee circulator trips where they're
just waiving their management fees to help also offset the costs that
Caring for Kids is experiencing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's a lot of money. That's over--
Page 100
May 24, 2005
that's almost $45,000 a month in management fees.
MS. FLAGG: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So I'd be real surprised if it takes that
amount of money just to schedule a trip, schedule these trips.
Nevertheless, I'm not going to get involved in the internal operations
of the contract, because I don't understand the business. But it appears
to me that we signed a contract with somebody.
MS. FLAGG: We did.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the contractor and the subcontractor
have a responsibility to perform. I'm willing to be reasonable to make
sure that these people who apparently are doing a very good job with
this program don't get hurt.
But we need more time, and that's where I am with this. We need
information. We just cannot make decisions without having solid
information on which to base those decisions.
And I think all of the commissioners are sympathetic to the issue.
We do not want to see this transportation program terminate, and we
don't want to see people, companies hurt, because of circumstances
beyond their control. But we do have a responsibility to the taxpayer
money. Okay.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. I just want to
go over it one more time where we are with this and where we're
gOing.
Have we established what we're going to do as far as making a
partial payment and bringing this back, if that's going to work for this
company, or is this going to leave them to the point where they're
going to have to cease operations with or without the limited funds we
send? That I need to know before we go forward with a vote.
MS. FLAGG: Commissioner, they said that it's ball park 50,000
every 15 days for payroll.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So what are we agreeing to to
Page 101
May 24, 2005
give them?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait. Okay, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. I'm just trying to interpret
the motion. What was the motion for as far as dollars and cents go;
was it to cover that, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was the intent of it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's what I thought.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But $50,000, is that above and
beyond what we're asking on this item?
MS. FLAGG: No. It's a total of 300,000 is what they're asking
for assistance in.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I guess I feel comfortable
in having the dollar amount of $50,000 until we can get more
information on this to make a permanent decision on this contract.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning has
clarified his motion to provide a dollar limit of $50,000.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: For each two weeks or for the
total --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: For the total time between now and the
next time we meet, right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Two weeks from now. Or no, it
will be longer than two weeks.
MR. MUDD: Twenty-one days.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Twenty-one days.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're going to go through two
cycles. In other words, 50,000 will get them through two weeks. Am
I correct, or am I reading this wrong?
MS. FLAGG: He said every 15 days, so they must pay twice a
month.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then, Commissioner
Henning, would you consider redoing your motion to prorate it for the
21 days?
Page 102
-_._~.. ." '. ,.-,..._-_.",~_.-
May 24, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I think that's fair.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The third --
MR. MUDD: It's around 75,000.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: $75,000.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning has
clarified his motion to provide a monetary limit of $75,000,
Commissioner Coletta has seconded the motion.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. So it passes 3-2, with
Commissioner Coy Ie and Commissioner Halas dissenting.
So we'll see it back -- coming back. And just --
MR. MUDD: Fourteenth of June, and staffs going to come see
each commissioner to explain the program to them, we'll keep it on the
regular agenda, and we have $75,000 to help defer the cost until that
particular meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we need total budgets and total
ridership --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and I need to understand how monies
flow between these two organizations, what fees are paid, what fees
are not paid.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Page 103
May 24, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm interested in why the insurance
rate went up so high. I can understand insurance going up, but that's
quite a magnitude.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: FEMA.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: FEMA?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: FEMA.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I would suggest that we take the
hour lunch break.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Or state legislature. It's either FEMA's
problem or it's state legislature's problem. We're--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Here we go.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to break for lunch. Thank
you very much. We'll be back here at one o'clock.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're back in session,
County Manager Mudd, where do we go from here?
Item #8A
PUDZ-A-2004-AR-5998: COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, REPRESENTED BY VINCENT A.
CAUTERO, AICP, OF COASTAL ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS, INC., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) TO COMMUNITY
FACILITIES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CFPUD) FOR A
PROJECT PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS THE BEMBRIDGE PUD,
TO CHANGE THE NAME TO THEBEMBRIDGEEMERGENCY
SERVICE COMPLEX PUD, AMEND THE PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED PUD DOCUMENT AND MASTER PLAN TO SHOW
A CHANGE IN USE FROM RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Page 104
"'--'~.....',....~
May 24, 2005
AND A CHURCH OR A NURSING HOME, TO ALLOW
DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES TO INCLUDE
AN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS CENTER,
OTHER GOVERNMENT FACILITIES, AND AN EXISTING
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF
39.82+/- ACRES AND IS LOCATED ON SANTA BARBARA
BOULEVARD, NORTH OF DAVIS BOULEVARD, IN SECTION
4, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA - DENIED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to a time certain of
one o'clock, and this is item 8A. This item to be heard at one p.m.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's PUDZ-A-2004-AR-5998, Collier County Board of County
Commissioners, represented by Vince A. Cautero, AICP, of Coastal
Engineering Consultants, Inc., requesting a loan from planned unit
development to community facilities planned unit development
(CFPUD) for a project previously known as the Bembridge PUD, to
change the name to the Bembridge Emergency Services Complex
PUD, amend the previously-approved PUD document and master plan
to show a change in use from residential development and a church or
a nursing home to allow development of community facilities to
include an emergency management operations center, other
government facilities, and an existing elementary school.
The project consists of 39.82 plus or minus acres, and it's located
on Santa Barbara Boulevard north of Davis Boulevard in Section 4,
Township 50 south, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida, and Ms.
Len Price, from admin. services division will present after everybody
gets sworn in.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Will everyone who is going to
provide testimony in this hearing please stand to be sworn in.
Page 105
,,~___,~~..~..., ,_.__ ·"····N.···_··_,~
May 24, 2005
It's a bunch of people. I think I'm going to adjourn this meeting
right now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Midnight.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. Now for ex parte
disclosure, please.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I do. In fact, I've had
meetings, correspondence and e-mails and also phone calls in regards
to this particular item that's on the agenda before us today.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We can't hear you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm sorry. Do you hear me now?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I've had numerous
meetings, correspondence, and e-mails and telephone calls in regards
to this item that's before us today on the agenda, and I've met
numerous times with staff.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can say the same here. I've
had numerous e-mails, phone calls, letters, meetings, and have met
with staff also.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have had all sorts of communications
from e-mails and letters, phone calls to personal meetings with people
in the community and with members of staff, and all that information
is in my public file, if you wish to take a look at it.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I, too, have had a lot of
correspondence, and I requested some extra information and received
it from our -- our EOC -- well, from Dan Summers. I also spoke with
him on the telephone, and I've had people coming to my office as
well. Everything is noted in this file.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have correspondence in my
Page 106
May 24, 2005
file that consists of phone calls, e-mails, letters, and including a
meeting with some folks from Countryside, talking to our staff,
receiving information from Dan Summers, talking to the media. Who
else did I talk to? Some elected officials in Collier County, and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not us though.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not us though.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no. I'm talking about fire
commissioners, and so on and so forth. But I have not talked to any of
my colleagues on the Board of Commissioners about this issue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Make that clear.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Len, it's all yours.
MS. PRICE: For the record, Len Price, administrative services
administrator. We're here today representing the county in requesting
a rezone from PUD -- from PUD to community facilities PUD.
Let me give you, to start with, an overview of the project that
we're talking about today. This piece right here, if you can follow the
arrow, this is the complex that we're looking at, behind it is the
existing school, this piece here will be stormwater retention, and right
here you have an already-approved commercial piece.
This item has come before you on a number of occasions
previously, starting back in September when we purchased the land
for an EMS substation and other future emergency services facilities.
Again, in February of 200 1, we approved the negotiations for the
design of the building. We came back another time in March of 2003
to approve the short list for the A&E, in March of 2004 to approve the
contract for CM at Risk, and then in February of2005, we brought this
item to the planning commission.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What's an A&E?
MR. MUDD: Architect and engineering firm.
MS. PRICE: Apologies. The planning commission
recommended denial of the project and cited six particular reasons.
Page 107
..,... --~~..
May 24, 2005
They had questions about the land search and site selection, they were
concerned about some of the issues brought up by the neighbors, they
asked us about line of site drawings that hadn't been brought with us
and the elevation drawings, they were concerned about the deviations
that we requested, and concerned about access for the neighboring
church.
Since that time, we have spent a good deal of time redesigning
some of these items so that we have been able to address all of these
items. The access for the church has been withdrawn by the church
after further discussions as to how that might work.
I'd like to talk to you about the site selection. This site was
selected back in 2000. There are only a few of us remaining today
who were part of that site selection process. But at the time what they
were looking for was a strategic location that would be close enough
to this government center, close enough to the local municipalities,
Marco Island, Naples, near major arterials, although not quite right on
1-75, and I'll explain that to you in just a minute.
We wanted to be outside of the coastal high hazard area, we
wanted to be within the East Naples substation so that they could join
us in this proj ect, and we were also looking for land that was either
already in our inventory or available to us at a reasonable cost.
I'd like to call your attention to the visualizer right now so that I
can graphically depict how we came up with this. Let me use a pen so
I can point to this, just so you can see what we've got here.
MR. MUDD: Here, see that. You've got the hand-held mike and
you've got the little mouse.
MS. PRICE: I've got the little mouse.
Right here you've got the government center. Our goal was to
find a site within a five-mile radius of that. This is your outer circle
right here.
In order for the radio tower to work with the existing radio
towers, we need to be within a four-mile radius. That could be
Page 108
,--....-.".,-,.~.~
'...---
May 24, 2005
extended to five miles, except as part of the redesign, we've lowered
the tower by 25 feet.
Additionally, we needed to stay out of an area right over here
, that's close to the airport. We wanted to be in the category three or
four storm surge, which is your purple area here.
This is 1-75, and we also needed to be within a one-mile buffer of
1-75 in the event that there would be a hazardous material spill. That
leaves us this portion right here to make the best site selection for this
facility, and right here at that blue dot is the site that we've actually
selected.
There were some additional benefits that came along with this
particular site, that was the fact that we've got voice and data
redundancy because of the fiber links that are being put in there
already. I mentioned the radio communication towers are close. We
can bounce off of radio towers on this building as well as one on
County Barn Road.
The proximity to the school was very important to us. It provides
us with some shared resources, and the school, by statute, is mandated
to encourage those types of partnerships. It also allowed us to share
the facility with the sheriffs department and the 911 center, which
provides us the opportunity to share information and to be able to have
a very close synergy when we're working on emergency situations.
We can also have this synergy during non-emergency situations as
well so that we build good partnerships with all the people who are
involved with these types of emergencies.
Based on the comments from the planning commission, we
revisited all of the sites that we had available to us, and here's a list of
just a few of those that we've looked at. The Lely site is planned right
now for our regional library , the south regional library . Each of these
sites had reasons why they didn't quite fit for us. They were not the
best fit.
The properties at the bottom, the one in red, Heritage Bay is up
Page 109
May 24, 2005
on 951 and Immokalee Road. That is land that was promised to us as
part of a PUD up there but doesn't actually belong to us as of yet. The
bottom two properties are not ours. Would have to purchase those
properties.
The last one was a suggestion made to us by the residents of
Countryside that we explored, however, the property owner is not
interested in selling that property, only leasing it and only for retail at
a size of about 10,000 square foot per occupant.
We wanted to remind the board that we have made public notice
about this facility on a number of occasions. I won't list these for you.
You've seen them on several occasions, as well as several news
articles that came out. So this has not been a surprise to anybody that
this was coming.
Additionally we solicited public input. We had our required
public meeting on August the 10th. At that time there were -- a few
members of the Countryside residents were there. They had a few
questions, which we addressed.
Up until the day of the planning commission, we had not been
given any negative comments from the residents, and so we, since
then, met with the association president and, again, with the full
membership at their annual meeting.
The neighborhood concerns were basically these; they were
concerned about noise, safety, and traffic, they were concerned about
the planned uses, the compatibility of the building in that area, the
building, and the tower height. So we wanted to go through those to
explain how we've addressed those.
With regard to noise, safety, and traffic, we want everyone to
understand that this is not a facility that is going to have big trucks
coming through it during emergencies or non-emergency times. The
generators that are out there are fully muffled and insulated, using
hospital grade levels, which keeps them well within the noise
ordinance that we have.
Page 110
--,~"--", ',-.-
May 24, 2005
There is not going to be any planned uses for bull horns or
outdoor P A systems. This was never part of the programming. We
also checked with the school district, and they told us that there are no
students that walk from the south of that building, so we're not
expecting students to be walking across there.
Additionally, our traffic forecast, based on that building's use,
would only increase traffic by about one and a half percent.
The planned uses for this building: This is an office building. It
will have the 911 call center, an East Naples sheriffs substation,
emergency management administrative staff, EMS administration, and
some classroom training space. We're also going to use it as a backup
for our information technology, our servers, a public information
studio, and the emergency operations center.
What we won't have there and what was never part of the
programming is helicopter operations. We never planned to have a
repelling tower. There were concerns about fire response. Fire
districts handle the fire responses. That does not happen from this
building.
The sheriffs deputies are dispatched from the road, not from the
substation. We have no plans to use that facility during emergencies
as a staging area for, for instance, FPL trucks, debris removal
equipment, et cetera, nor will we be handling distribution of supplies,
ice and those measures, after a disaster.
Here's a picture to just demonstrate how the 911 center operates.
It's a very quiet, behind-the-scenes type operation. Our emergency
center, even during activations, is a quiet, while albeit chaotic area,
but we're not talking about, you know, additional noise that's going to
interfere with any of the residents or the surrounding area.
In terms of compatibility, what you've got near there is a school,
a storage facility, an approved retail center, a convenience store, and
we're on or near major roadways. This office building would be a
good transition between those uses and the multi-family that is to the
Page 111
"-............."....._>.~_.~'-,-"_.,..-
May 24, 2005
north of it.
Once again, I wanted to call your attention to the aerial view.
You can see by looking at this, the school is about three times the size
of this building, and the retail is probably about four times the size of
the building.
In terms of aesthetics, we will have landscaping in excess of that
which is required to keep the building from, you know, visual, from
the front. We're using paint and facade design to make sure it's an
attractive building, not a big square box.
We've added a few windows to try and break up the monotony,
and we wanted to remind everybody that the tower height is measured
from the ground and not from the top of the building. That would be
175 feet from the ground, and I think that was a misconception at one
point in time, so we wanted to make sure that that was clear.
The building itself, we have reduced the zoned height from the
original approximately 100 feet that we were asking, down to 72 feet.
We were able to do that by incorporating some of the mechanics
inside the building so we could still retain the functionality but be able
to reduce the height from the outside. We were also, after we did
some radio tower calculations, we were able to reduce the height of
the tower from the original 200 down to 175 feet.
Here's a picture of what that looks like. As you can see right here,
this piece right here comes to 72 feet. We have taken out our plans for
an expansion to a fifth story . We're going to be able to use this
building as it's designed.
The pictures that you see right here, the landscaping is not a good
representation. This is just a concept drawing for you.
Here's our line-of-sight drawing. You can see from right here,
most of the view is going to be of the treetops, between the treetops at
Countryside and what we've got right here.
I'd like to call your attention to these two points right here,
because I've got photographs to follow of how this might look once
Page 112
May 24, 2005
the building is built.
I'd also like to call your attention to the two condo buildings right
here that do not directly face our building. So from their backyards,
they're going to be looking this way or looking this way.
The first picture I have for you is from straight across from the
ground level down here. The second one is from this piece back here.
From directly across the lake, this would be the view of our
building, and from just a little bit further north, this is all that you're
going to be able to see.
Planning commission was concerned about the deviations that we
had requested. Most of them were in an effort for us to maximize the
use of this building. We were able to take, from the eight that we
originally requested, bring that down to three.
We're going to be asking for a rear landscape buffer deviation
from the required 10 feet to three feet. This is on the back portion of
the building, and we have -- as a matter of fact, I'd like to introduce a
letter from the school district where they have expressed no opposition
to that deviation. They've also provided, once again, support for this
project and for working with us.
We're requesting a deviation from the glazing requirements from
30 percent down to 10 percent. That is -- windows. The number of
windows, ma'am.
We've done that so that we can ensure that the building is safe
during the highest level of storms. This is a functional requirement of
the building.
And the final deviation is to allow the school to put up an
additional sign. This is very common in most of the schools to be able
to put up a marque sign that might be funded by one of the local
organizations. There was no opposition to that particular deviation
request at the planning commission meeting.
There's been some discussion about the potential for a regional
emergency operations center. And while we certainly agree that
Page 113
May 24, 2005
where regional operations are a wise choice during a lot of different
types of activities, during a local emergency, it's very important that
we be able to handle it with local resources and that we are the
primary occupant during those times.
These -- this would allow us to provide continuity of government
in the event that we're hit by something major. We could issue
permits from this site and be able to keep the government going during
the initial emergency, you know, post-disaster event.
This is also a hardened structure, so we are convinced that it is
going to stand. We've had some of our neighbors lose their
emergency operations center during this last hurricane season. This is
not something that we want to happen to us.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So hardened doesn't mean that we're
going to build a soft building. Tell me what hardened actually means.
MS. PRICE: Hardened means that it can withstand the storm
surge and the winds.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What makes it hardened?
MS. PRICE: I'm going to defer to our design team to answer
those questions for you.
MR. SCHARF: My name is Marvin Scharf. I'm with Scharf and
Associates. We're associate architects with Harvard jelly (sic) for this
project.
A hardened facility is one -- for instance, this building. It has a
full concrete structure. It is not built out of steel. It is concrete. The
exterior walls of the building are concrete, and they are approximately
seven and a half or eight inches thick to withstand any debris that may
come at it from the winds during a hurricane. And that's really what
the hardened building is structurally.
There are other devices and other elements within the building,
such as redundancy in terms of mechanical systems, electrical. That's
the reason for the emergency generator, to enable the building to
withstand and stand alone, if necessary, during an event.
Page 114
May 24, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I ask these questions because these
are questions that you know in your industry and maybe some of us
don't know, so I like -- like glazing, for instance, instead of windows.
You know, I just like to be said out in the open so everybody
understands what we're talking about. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioners, did you want to have
your questions answered now or do you want to wait till the end of the
presentation?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll wait till the end.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just have one question, and that's
in regards to the variance from 10- feet (sic) buffer to a three-feet (sic)
buffer. Does this -- is the reason being that this doesn't back up to any
residence, it backs up to stormwater containment pond?
MS. PRICE: That's right. Ifwe were to -- in order for us to put
the 10 feet in, we're going to have to give up additional parking space
that we really need.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Does this --
MS. PRICE: And it backs up, exactly as you said, to the pond.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Is it going to have any
effect as regards to the property -- the adj oining property after the --
once you clear the stormwater containment area, the next area is the
school. Is there going to be any problem there?
MS. PRICE: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. PRICE: Here's a picture of what we've -- you know, what
we're talking about. That piece right there in the back, that's the --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the landscaping, that three foot, is
right along here in the back of the building. The school is over on this
side of that piece.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, good.
MR. MUDD: And as Ms. Price, mentioned we did receive a
Page 115
May 24, 2005
letter from the school district, and it showed up on the 21 st of May,
that basically said they're fine with that three-foot buffer.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Please continue, Len.
MS. PRICE: It's important to us that we do not collocate the
EOC with the government center providing us with two separate
places where we can have government operations.
Additionally, we want you to know that this building is within a
storm zone, the storm surge zone; during Donna, that this area was
completely covered in water, the Glades behind us was covered almost
to the roof, and this building was built before the new codes that came
out in the early '90s. So we definitely want an alternative site that's
built to the newer codes.
We also want to remind you that, you know, when it comes to
regionalization, that the emergency operations center handles far more
than just hurricanes. They handle HazMat situations, local brush fires,
major vehicle accidents, and even power outages that might come up,
so it's not just about hurricanes.
Some additional benefits to this -- to having a building such as
this is the coordinated response that we get. We have an opportunity
for all of our people to come in. This building will provide a place for
FP &L, Sprint, all the workers that we need so that we can have all the
information at one place.
The public can get the information they need through the media
as well as through our Collier call center. And an additional benefit to
the neighbors who might be close by is going to be that they've got the
law enforcement substation right across the street from them, they've
also got close access post-storm to getting permits to having their
homes repaired and access to pre-hurricane or pre-storm information
as well.
Additional considerations. I talked to you about the pre-Andrew
code, and just to keep in mind, Charlotte and Escambia both lost their
emergency operations center, and we feel it is crucial that we would
Page 116
May 24, 2005
build a building that will take care of everything that we need, as well
as being strong enough to withstand that type of storm should it hit us.
What happens next? After -- after you make your decision,
based on what you tell us, there's going to be either some small
amount of redesign or a major complete redesign. After that we
would have to get the permits and build the building.
If the redesign is minor in nature, we're hoping to have a building
open in about two and a half years. If it is significant, we're probably
looking at somewhere between four and five years before the building
might be opened.
And my recommendation to you would be that you approve our
request for a rezone.
I offer ourselves up to any questions that you might have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How can you get permits in two
to three months when I know, the private sector, it takes years and
years and years to get things done? Is it somebody that you know that
can speed up the process?
MS. PRICE: No, sir. It's more a matter of knowing the process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I see. Maybe you can
educate me on that.
MS. PRICE: We can talk about that off-line, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Tell me about the
uses. You've got three different uses within this facility. And tell me
the square foot allocation of these uses.
MS. PRICE: Okay. While someone comes up with the square
foot allocation, let me just remind you it's going to be a 911, call
center, the emergency operations center, and emergency management
administration and emergency medical services administration and
training.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there a sheriffs substation
within this?
Page 117
" ......~_._~._.~~--"_..-._"
~.'''''''~-----
May 24, 2005
MS. PRICE: I'm sorry, yes, and a sheriffs substation. It's--
really there's four main --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. PRICE: -- functions within the building, as well as a small
area for public information center, the backup for the IT servers, the
call center, and some other--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What I understand is this site
would be the East Naples sheriffs substation.
MS. PRICE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any proposed sheriffs
substation in the future in East Naples proposed?
MS. PRICE: No. The current station would be closed and
moved to this one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the current station is on
east 41?
MS. PRICE: Correction. The station that we currently have
would not be closed. This would be a second station within East
Naples.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay. I see.
I still would like to know the square foot allocations.
MR. SCHARF: I'm sorry, sir. I wasn't prepared for specific
square footages per department, but --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, generality will work,
too.
MR. SCHARF: We have approximately a 4,000 square foot
substation, approximately 5,000 square foot EMS facility. That's
EMS offices. I think it's around 7,000 square feet of storage facility
for EMS supplies.
The 911 call center and the emergency operations center are
probably both equal at about 7,000 -- and please forgive me if I don't
have these quite right, but about 7,000 square feet each. And then
there are a bunch of ancillary operations within the facility,
Page 118
May 24, 2005
mechanical equipment, electrical equipment, telephone equipment,
computers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Len, then I need to ask,
on the EMS, 7,000 square feet for storage --
MS. PRICE: Want to know what we're going to be putting in
there?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
MS. PRICE: EMS supplies, you know, medical supplies,
stretchers. Help me out here, folks.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Those type of -- just
daily medical --
MS. PRICE: Daily operating supplies, those sorts of things.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And where do you do that
presently?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you do that in Building H --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- and you do that up on the third floor. They
pretty much have close to a wing that they've dedicated to that supply
side of the house, so the ambulances would come in there on the --
when I've seen them, they've been in there on the weekends,
sometimes in the morning they'll come in. They bring all the supplies
down from the third floor, and they basically put them into their EMS
ambulances, okay, so that they can be ready -- ready for duty.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. Mr. Page probably
can elaborate on it more. This is going to be, Mr. Page, where you're
going to be housed and your administration staff of EMS?
MR. PAGE: Yes, sir. Commissioners, for the record, Jeff Page
with Emergency Medical Services.
Currently right now our supply has not grown over the last
several years. We provide supplies not only for EMS, but the fire
districts as well, and we're currently having to move some of the
supply storage to outlying stations into the supervisor areas, along
Page 119
",_____._v.,_,_,·· ','_ '·.,.'~·....m"__'_"H~,_.__
May 24, 2005
with some other rental facilities that we have, so we're in need of
larger -- larger areas for that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hopefully whosever on the
engineering project can probably assist me in this.
Regards to elevation, what's the present elevation that we have at
our emergency management center right today?
MS. PRICE: This building?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, the elevation level?
MS. PRICE: This building is 102 feet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no, no. Sea level elevation?
MS. PRICE: Oh. It's 12 to 13 feet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And the proposed site is --
what's the elevation level there?
MS. PRICE: Eighteen.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Eighteen, okay. So for six feet, we
gain quite a bit then or what?
MS. PRICE: Not just six feet high, you're also further inland.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. Questions, too,
about the building itself. Will this building -- it's going to be built to
withstand a category four or five?
MS. PRICE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that means that -- a
category five's what, 140?
MS. PRICE: Hundred and forty-five.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Hundred and forty-five mile an
hour winds. And this building definitely is going to be built to
withstand that?
MS. PRICE: Yes, sir.
Page 120
May 24, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if we have a -- the worst
possible scenario with a category five coming in and catching the bad
side of it, the -- what is it, the north side?
MS. PRICE: The northeast corner, I believe.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, of the storm. The surge
that would result from that, would we be at an elevation sufficient to
be able to have this building protected from the surge?
MS. PRICE: Yes, sir. The building itself, the area that it's in, is
far enough out to withstand up to category three. By bringing the
elevation up further, we'll be able to handle category four or five storm
surge.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, the other question
is, is the people that come there to work at the command center, work
at the sheriffs office and they park their cars, will the parking lot be of
an elevation sufficient to be able to offer protection for the vehicles
that are there, or emergency vehicles?
MR. SUMMERS: The parking lot is not, and for the -- simply
for the cost efficiencies associated with that, that was a value
engineering concern. What we are prepared to do in the emergency
plan, however, is to have the emergency workers park their vehicles at
another location that would be safe, and bus our personnel in as we
need to.
And I'd like to emphasize the point -- only during the hurricane
event. But I'd also emphasize the point that we also have an elevation
-- all the critical facilities are elevated above that, are 12 feet or so
raised, so that's hence the additional value that we were able to place
in this design by category four or five threshold.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The other question I've got, in
the event of a major storm, of course we're going to basically be shut
down, and there's going to have to be an effort put forward to open up
the highways. Is this particular location that you're contemplating for
this building, is that at a location that would be easy to open up first?
Page 121
-".~"-'''-,----~.
May 24, 2005
Because I imagine the first thing you would want to open is the main
thoroughfare to the command center.
MR. SUMMERS: One of the -- good point, sir. One of the points
that you need to be aware of, that in our debris removal planning, we
actually start from the hospitals outward to the major inter -- to the
major interchanges.
One of the things that this facility provides, again, being away
somewhat from the coastal urban area, is simply less vegetative debris
to deal with in terms of road clearing. So our analysis is that we
actually are ahead of the game by this facility not being impacted by
debris removal, and we would put our resources, again, hospitals out
to major roadways, again, knowing we have more vegetation closer to
the coast.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Summers, you've been
involved with this particular project since day one?
MR. SUMMERS: No, sir, I have not. This process was well
underway before I joined Collier County.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And what are -- could you, for
our benefit -- it's been a little while since I asked you this question.
What is your credentials as far as an emergency management director?
MR. SUMMERS: Sir, I hold a BS degree in disaster
management from Thomas Edison University, I'm a certified
emergency manager by the International Association of Emergency
Management, I hold FEMA's highest training standard as a graduate of
the professional development series for emergency management, I'm
part of FEMA's curriculum design for emergency operations on a
national basis, and I've testified to Congress on emergency operations
on behalf of FEMA.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Just a few simple ones, I
believe. I'll reserve the others for later on. One of them is, how tall is
Page 122
May 24, 2005
the building over the 72 feet? You showed the 72 feet on the top of
that wall there, but it looked like there was still other stuff going up
there.
MR. HOVELL: For the record, Ron Hovell with facilities
management department. I was trying to pull up the slide again. I
believe the height to the peak of the building, of the equipment section
of the building, is -- I believe it's ninety -- I can't quite read it -- looks
like 89. Right around 90 feet, I believe, was the answer.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Len, you had said that they
won't be repelling on a tower, but will they be repelling on the
building?
MS. PRICE: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Only if it floods.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It said someplace in -- I read all the
CCPC, and they were talking about repelling up and down buildings
and so forth.
MS. PRICE: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then they said -- you know, it's
hard to tell because all I had was the CCPC, and it didn't go back to
them, so I don't know what's been changed since or anything. So you
say that they will not ever be repelling up and down the outside of any
of the buildings, right?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, it's not a training facility.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, but it said that in here, so --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this isn't a training facility either,
but the fire department asks us every once in a while to repel off the
buildings so that they can be -- they can stay proficient when they
have to fight a fire someplace. They also use our stairwells to practice
on the weekends so they can get up to a high-rise in order to fight it
from a stairwell side of the house. They don't use it on a regular basis,
but I think they come and play in our stairwell about once a quarter,
and I think they repel outside of our building --
Page 123
"-"--"f",..^--~.._--~,.+
_"^·..___.........",.._._·...·~'ú'.~."__._____."..
May 24, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They do.
MR. MUDD: -- twice a year.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm just asking.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. So what I'm going to say to you is, if
you say -- if you say never, are they going to do it, is it another board
that comes in being 10 years from now who looks at the fire guys and
says, hey, you need to do your once-a-year qualification, can you use
the building, and they say yes, are we breaking a promise then to the
community? It's not a regular training facility.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's why I asked the question,
because what Len said was, they will not be repelling down the tower.
She did not say the building, and I wanted to put this on the record so
that we know what they're doing and what they're not doing.
MS. PRICE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was just a little sleight of
words there, and I just wanted to put that on the record.
And the last thing I wanted to ask you, I read this about the
tower, but I didn't read anything about the guy wires. Does it have
guy wires?
MS. PRICE: No, no. This is monolithic, single-pole
construction.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you're going to like dig it deep in
the ground?
MS. PRICE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That's all the questions for
now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm going to save all my questions but
one for after the public comment. But who told you that during
Hurricane Donna the water was up to the roofs in the Glades?
MS. PRICE: Mr. Mudd.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I didn't realize I was that tall. But I was
wading in the water in Hurricane Donna when it hit here.
Page 124
May 24, 2005
MS. PRICE: Apologize if I misunderstood what he said.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. I hope that didn't
have any bearing on the engineering of the building.
MS. PRICE: Building was well engineered before I came on that
information.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Thank you very much.
If the commissioners have no further questions, I'd like to get
public comment, I think we have six speakers.
MS. FILSON: Actually, that has grown, sir. We now have 23.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to have staffs
report.
MS. FILSON: Twenty-four.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, our planning staffs report.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You want to hear planning staffs
report first? I thought we were getting staffs report since staff was
talking, but I guess not.
MS. PRICE: Today I'm the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we'll discriminate against
you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're going to become another
Rich Yovanovich, huh?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, that's right.
MS. PRICE: That's my goal.
MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is
Kay Deselem, and I am a principal planner with zoning and land
development review division.
And just so you clarify, I'm the staff person that reviewed the
petition. They are the petitioner. So it -- we're all staff but in different
capacities.
And you have the executive summary. You also have the staff
report, all the backup. I tried to provide you as much information as I
could so you could see where staff was coming from. I won't belabor
Page 125
May 24, 2005
the issue, other than to just say that staff is recommending approval of
the petition.
We have recommended that it be found consistent with the
growth management plan. Both the future land use element and map,
as well as those policies dealing with compatibility. Staffs belief is
that this particular use at this site would be compatible. We're,
therefore, recommending that you approve it. And if you have any
other questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any questions, Commissioners?
Commissioner Henning?
MR. MUDD: Can you just state what the planning -- the
planning commission --
MS. DESELEM: Oh, I'm sorry, yes. The planning commission
did recommend denial of the petition. It was an 8-1 vote. And in the
executive summary, I tried to summarize what their concerns were,
and you also saw it in the slide presentation as well. And the staff
report does go into detail about how the applicant attempted to
ameliorate those concerns raised by the planning commission.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is an existing PUD,
correct?
MS. DESELEM: Yes, it is an existing PUD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it a commercial PUD or
residential PUD?
MS. DESELEM: At the time this one was actually designed and
approved, we didn't have that designation like we do now. But by and
large, it was designed to be residential. They were residential uses,
and by conditional use, they could also have a church or an adult
congregate living nursing home facility.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This PUD was approved --
actually it's ordinance 89-86, so I'm assuming it was approved by the
Board of Commissioners in 1989.
Page 126
May 24, 2005
Has -- to your knowledge, has it ever been sunsetted, the PUD?
MS. DESELEM: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the provisions for
sunsetting of PUDs?
MS. DESELEM: I don't know exactly, and I can't quote it
verbatim at this point, but usually you have to have some significant
development within five years of the date of approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. On this PUD, there is an
EMS station, emergency medical facility. That -- that's not a part of
the request today for a continual use; is that correct?
MS. DESELEM: No. It's listed as a permitted use in the
proposed PUD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And how did you come to
determine that it is a permitted use under the existing PUD?
MS. DESELEM: I actually did not make that determination. As
you may be aware, there was a conditional use petition submitted at
one time for that conditional use to allow an emergency center there,
and it was determined by county staff that it was not required to have
a conditional use. It was permitted by the PUD as an essential
services facility.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What staff member -- what
department made that determination it was a conditional use under the
-- or permitted use under the existing PUD?
MS. DESELEM: My understanding, there were at least three
persons involved in the meeting, Margie Student-Stirling, Ray
Bellows, and Robin Meyer, and Margie is, of course, with the county
attorney's office, the other two are in the same department that I am.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if an emergency medical
service facility is determined to be a permitted use, why is not a
sheriffs substation, an emergency management facility and the like
considered a permitted use?
MS. DESELEM: Those uses were determined to change the
Page 127
May 24, 2005
actual scope of that PUD. Changing it from the residential use that
was originally approved and would, thus, require an amendment to the
PUD; whereas, the emergency medical center was viewed as more of
an ancillary use that could help serve the existing school.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So I have the PUD in
front of me, and I think you determine under -- and somebody needs
to answer this question because the public brought it up to my
attention, and I think your staff needs to answer that, and I'm not
getting answers.
The purpose -- development standards -- and I think this is B --
for accessory uses, permitted accessory uses in structures, and it does
say essential services. I understand that EMS is essential service, but I
think EOC is essential services, too, and I think sheriffs substation is
essential services.
So how did we determine that EMS is an essential service to the
main use, either under this PUD or the existing use?
MS. DESELEM: Since I wasn't personally involved in that
particular decision, Ray Bellows was -- and I'd rather that he respond
since I really --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I do have other questions on
your report.
MS. DESELEM: Oh, yeah. I'll be right here.
MR. BELLOWS: Good afternoon, Commissioner. For the
record, Ray Bellows, zoning manager.
I believe the question is how we came about permitting the EMS
facility. When I was involved with the project, I required them to
submit a conditional use under the essential service requirements of
the land development code.
And during the middle of that review process, the applicant, Mr.
Vince Cautero, presented some information based on the PUD
language and called a meeting with the planner assigned at that time,
Robin Meyer, and the county attorney's office to discuss the
Page 128
May 24, 2005
possibility that this could be deemed a permitted use as an accessory
to the permitted principal uses.
Through the discussion -- and I'm trying to recall all the facts that
were presented at the time, and I would need some more research to
get all the information. But it was determined that the EMS facility
could be deemed, under the provisions of the PUD document,
accessory to the permitted uses.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What is the permitted
uses that you're citing that this EMS station is an accessory use to?
MR. BELLOWS: The existing school.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So the existing school --
the EMS station is the -- is the accessory use to this school?
MR. BELLOWS: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And the EMS station, is
it going to be operated at the same time that -- or it's going to close the
doors down when school is out in the summertime?
MR. BELLOWS: No. I don't have all the information of how
the EMS operates. There is a site development plan, but my
understanding is that would be open all the time, and the school site is
open also during non-school hours also.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the purpose of the
school? It's an elementary school, correct?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Is -- the school, I'm
assuming, closes down at 2:30 like any other elementary school?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, there's a difference between the school
hours, and the school still is in operation for other school activities and
events.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it a 24-hour --
MR. BELLOWS: No, it's not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- seven-day-a-week use, the
school?
Page 129
May 24, 2005
MR. BELLOWS: Not typically, no.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But the accessory use is?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's deemed an accessory
use to the principal use?
MR. BELLOWS: Again, I don't have all the facts with me at this
late hour. But at the time the decision was made, and it is a permitted
-- at that time, but we could -- another purpose of this amendment to
the PUD is to make that a permitted use, along with the EOC.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is the EOC a seven -- 24/7
operation?
MR. BELLOWS: Could you repeat the question, please?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The emergency management
facility proposed conditional use, is that a seven day-a-week,
24-hour-a-day operation?
MR. BELLOWS: The EOC?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
MR. BELLOWS: It's not a conditional use. It's an amendment to
the PUD document.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I think it is -- it has the
potential of being --
MS. PRICE: The EOC 911 is a 24 by 7, as is the substation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. Okay. So I won't get
my answers today on the details of the accessory use?
MR. BELLOWS: I didn't have time to pull all the files. Some of
them are in storage.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I do have a question
about the communication tower.
Thank you, Mr. Bellows.
The review --
MS. PRICE: I don't have the answer, but I'll get --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, the review of the
Page 130
"">-'--~~~-"~-'-""
May 24, 2005
communication tower -- and I'm sure this is not the first one that you
reviewed --
MS. DESELEM: That's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- communication towers.
The -- if I read the planning commissioner's meeting correctly,
the original request was 700 feet. And you supported it because it
came down to 200 feet.
MS. DESELEM: I don't recall that it was ever 700 feet. Ire--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It says that in there.
MS. DESELEM: Okay. I stand corrected then, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is your understanding why
you supported a 200- foot tower?
MS. DESELEM: Because it seemed appropriate at the location
given the way it was oriented to the building and to the land uses
around it. The tower was shown to be located at the rear of the
building, that is along the water management area. So we believed that
it was located in the place that would make it the least obtrusive to
anybody else -- pardon me -- anybody else.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it's an aesthetic type thing,
that's why you supported it behind the building?
MS. DESELEM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's more of an aesthetic thing?
MS. DESELEM: Yes. Plus, as we discussed and what came
about in another petition for the Golden Gate Fire Station, that
particular use, a communication tower is allowed as part of an
essential service facility.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, well, I'm glad you brought
that up, because I have that here, and that's what I'm using a
comparable on, since you were the planner of both these projects.
MS. DESELEM: That's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And originally you wouldn't
support it but changed your mind because it came down to 135 foot.
Page 131
"-<._"._,---~..._,.,..,._.,.,,"", "'.,...._.._.~-
May 24, 2005
MS. DESELEM: I believe that was one thing that was done, but
we also did -- in one of the supplemental staff reports to that particular
petition, we noticed that it was in error, and that that particular use of a
communication tower was a permitted use as part of an essential
service facility, and we limited it, with the cooperation of the
applicant, who then stated that they wouldn't have any commercial use
above that tower's height that was necessary for the essential service
facility use.
The original disagreement between staff and the applicant, if you
will, was the fact that they wanted to have that to a higher height than
what was necessary for the essential service use, and they were going
to lease it out for commercial uses, which we didn't believe was
appropriate in the location that it was.
And once they limited the way it was and we determined it, in
fact, was a permitted use in that association, staff did support that
tower.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Have you requested from
the petitioner in this case a radio frequency calculation to support their
request?
MS. DESELEM: No, we didn't, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There was no request to do that,
Mr. Summers?
You can shake your head yes or no.
MR. SUMMERS: Well, it needs clarification.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. SUMMERS: I want to make sure that we're talking about
the two-way radio tower, not any tower associated with a fire training
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The 200 foot.
MR. SUMMERS: Right. The original discussion in the plan was
that this tower in a higher tower site could become a county primary
site, in other words, a heavily beefed up antenna and tower structure
Page 132
May 24, 2005
that would maintain -- it would be the central point, the central hub,
much like the central repeater location, for those of you who are
familiar with amateur radio.
We were able to bring the design down. And the RF coverage,
what we call the radio frequency spectrum coverage, John Daly,
county staff who manages the 800 megahertz radio system, has got the
engineering data. And instead of this being a prime site, it is a link
site.
It does have backup redundancy to it, but it will not, because of
the height, will not cover radio signal as far as a backup tower site, but
it does allow us to use 911, use the 800 megahertz to link to our other
towers.
So our radio spectrum engineering is done within staff. And,
again, part of that staffing benefit is the fact that we were able to make
some reduction in height, not only for aesthetics, but to still meet the
essential public safety communications that we need out of this
building, not only for daily, but during disaster events.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I provided -- my
concern, Commissioners, is we're not consistent in our reviews. I
think it's very appropriate for emergency services to have more than
ample enough equipment to support their facility.
This -- I don't want to deviate too much, but it was stated under
the Golden Gate petition that collocation of services is a good thing so
we don't proliferate towers all over the county.
But I provided the county manager with some information that I
think can demonstrate that there's not the same consistency of review
between applications.
On page 5 of 16, if we could put that up on the visualizer. It's
page 12 of 133. And you know what, I'm not even going to bring it
up, because I do believe, again, that emergency management, sheriff
department, fire stations, EMS, needs proper equipment. The only
point that I'm making is consistency within community development
Page 133
May 24, 2005
of review, and I'm going to leave it alone.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I was reading over the CCPC
minutes, and I noticed in here -- and I just would like some
clarification. Mr. Abernathy asked, do you anticipate having berthing
here for the county commissioners, and then Dan Summers, we could
do that. We could make provisions.
And then Mr. Abernathy said, I mean, you're talking about
leadership and whatever. And Mr. Summers said, we could make it.
We could make that provision if it becomes necessary for our
operations. We have just a small amount of flexibility to do that.
And then Mr. Abernathy said, we probably would appreciate that
rather than to go over to the school in the rain, and Dan Summers said,
well, part of it is, what we're able to do under our state of emergency
ordinance, and that is -- is that, that they do sort of shift out that
leadership and policy guidance to the emergency operations center.
So is that saying that they don't need us to be there? They shift
that responsibility to -- well, that's what it says anyway, and so I
wanted clarification on that.
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioner, thank you. Dan Summers.
Again, the comment here is, is it necessary for the elected officials to
be physically housed in that location 24 hours a day under a state of
emergency, and do we have bunk space availability.
Part of the value engineering effort that was put into this building
is, you have a building that's very well built and has an extensive cost
per square foot. Every space in there is utilized to the fullest ability.
And what we did not want to do is consume excessive square footage
for bunking. We have minimal --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What you said was, what we're able
to do under our state of emergency ordinance is to sort of a shift out
that -- of that leadership and policy guidance to the emergency
operations center. That's what you said.
Page 134
May 24, 2005
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, ma'am, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You were talking really about the
bunking.
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, ma'am. And to carry that one step
forward, we want to have that situation where we declare the state of
emergency. That's where you invoke the county manager additional
powers and responsibilities which are -- part of those duties are
forwarded to me to take action on to protect the community; however,
that's just in a natural hazards event.
If we had any other hazardous materials event or some other type
of event where it was necessary for you to take shelter as elected
officials there during that process, that scenario is an option that we're
building into this on a very small scale.
The -- part of the support mechanism that we're building here is
that -- trying to building for the appropriate scenario. What is the
appropriate risk versus benefit? And part of this is using the school as
a shelter facility wherein those -- we can have radio contact with you
from the EOC to the shelter, if you elect to stay there, and, again,
getting you protected during times of an emergency, we can do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm not getting my answer.
So in a state of emergency then, do they -- do they not need us
really to be here any longer --
MR. MUDD: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- because it says it's going to shift
that responsibility?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, if we answer the question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. MUDD: You basic -- when we had the hurricane this last
summer, we have a board meeting before an emergency's going to
transpire, okay, we try to get all the board members together, okay, in
order to have an initial meeting to try to get a declaration of
emergency, okay, because that opens up state and federal coffers as far
Page 135
May 24, 2005
as that's concerned.
Then we try to hold meetings as long as we can until we get the
particular storm or whatnot that comes forward. Now, we were lucky,
we had four hurricanes, none of which caused us not to be around the
next day or not to have a house or anything else, so we didn't have that
problem.
But while that storm is happening, you have an emergency
operations center, you have an ordinance that delegates who's -- who's
in charge if you can't get the senior commissioner or you can't get the
second senior commissioner, if you can't get the county manager, you
even go down to the clerk, okay, in order to try to figure out who that
chain is going to be if we have an emergency, because we could -- we
could become victims of that particular emergency. Thank God last
time we weren't.
But we have a structure whereby that can happen and there -- and
the county is still recovering, is still under some leadership control to
try to recover from that particular emergency until we can get a
governing body of the Board of County Commissioners back in
seSSIon.
Or if we have -- if we have a problem where we can't get a
quorum, the governor might have to designate some members to
replace, and I'm talking about a very extreme case where one of the
board members or a couple of the board members perish in a particular
storm. And I'm -- the worst case I'm talking about. Knocking on
wood. That should never happen.
And so you have a procedure set down in an ordinance whereby
the county is still -- has leadership, can still recover, people -- the
taxpayers could look to a particular governing body or person,
depending on the scale and the -- and the -- or the aggregate of the
storm so that the county can still recover and still have some
governance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The short answer is, we don't
Page 136
May 24, 2005
sleep in the EOC now and never have.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My concern wasn't -- we're all on
vacation in August, and so if we don't need to be here, then, you
know, I just want to know --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would suggest all the residents do the
same thing.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. This is for Dan Summers. I
hope that he can assist me in this. This is getting back to the tower
height. I think originally the tower height was scheduled at 200 feet?
MR. SUMMERS: That's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And your concerns were of radio
frequency propagation; is that correct?
MR. SUMMERS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. With the height of the tower
at present of 175 feet, what is your best guess -- or maybe you already
know the facts -- how far out can we reach as far as propagation at the
frequencies that are needed?
MR. SUMMERS: Ifwe go in the non-repeat or the non-trucking
mode, we should be able to get out to a mobile vehicle for five miles
to a hand-held unit by four miles. That's using the 800 megahertz
radio system.
You know that we rely heavily on amateur radio for additional
linkages for additional distance coverage with our radio signal. This is
the bare minimum that we can do, and also understand that we have
put a lot of effort in this reduction of height in order to build this
particular unit to withstand the additional wind load under the
worst-case scenario.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My other question is, if we have all
repeater stations up and running after an event, do we have contact
with Lee County and the surrounding counties?
MR. SUMMERS: Not necessarily. That's why we have multiple
Page 137
May 24, 2005
systems of communication. It may be 800 megahertz, it may be
amateur radio, it may be VHF fire, it could be the private cellular
carriers or typicallandline. Every one of the storm events, we saw
communication systems, some failed, some did not. And every storm
event puts a different scenario on those communication linkages,
hence the need that we have multiple levels.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do we have capability on this
tower at 175 feet to reach other entities such as Lee County, Hendry
County, with -- from our command center if we decide to build an
EOC at that location?
MR. SUMMERS: Only if the other towers remain intact can we
get to the other organizations on public safety radio channels. We can
hit those other agencies by amateur radio and by FEMA short wave.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what about contact; do we
also have the provisions on this tower to be in contact with Sprint and
with FPL?
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, we do. One of the provisions that we
will have is radio capability with them, but more importantly, their
organizational representatives in the emergency operations center with
redundant communication linkages to their storm centers.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Before the storm we contact
FEMA by landline, which is phone. During the storm, or just after the
storm, will we have the capabilities of contacting FEMA with an
antenna placed on this tower?
MR. SUMMERS: No, it will not, but the antenna -- but we are
planning on using a very small, less than a large pizza type antenna
that will be on the building that will hit the satellite that will
communicate with FEMA.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. SUMMERS: So that is not a tower-based linkage, but a
satellite-based communication link.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Will this be out of the view of the
Page 138
,.."._---_..~--,.,~.-
May 24, 2005
public?
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Does staff have anything
more to tell us?
MS. DESELEM: No, sir. I've given you our conclusion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. We're going to
go to public speakers. We'll take a break at 2:30.
Now, for those of you who are going to speak -- there are 23
people, we're going to allot three minutes each.
MS. FILSON: Twenty-five.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many?
MS. FILSON: Twenty-five now. It keeps growing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There are not supposed to be any other
registrations once we begin the topic of discussion. There will be no
further registrations accepted.
Now, everybody who is registered will have an opportunity to
speak. But despite what you have heard over the past hour or so,
we're really not as dumb as we look, and you only need to tell us one
time that you don't like it and the reasons that you don't like it.
We would appreciate it if you would not be repetitive. If
someone has said what you're going to say, please, in the interest of
time, you can stand up and say, I agree with that person and waive,
and then we'll go on.
But we're going to be here at least for another hour and a half just
taking public input, and that delays the decision, of course, that you
would like to get to, I'm sure.
So we'll start with the public speakers. And I'd like to have two
names called at a time. If one would go to that podium and one would
go to the other one, we'll have people constantly standing by, and we
can move this along a bit more efficiently.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Grover Whidden. He'll be
Page 139
May 24, 2005
followed by Frank McGinty.
Mr. Chairman, could you check to see if all the speakers were
sworn in?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. All those people who have
registered to speak, is there anyone who was not sworn in? Okay. We
have one. Is there another one? We have two, three. Anyone who --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Everybody stand up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. All right. Everybody stand up and
we'll swear you in again.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Grover, how are you?
MS. FILSON: Mr. McGinty, you're the second speaker. Would
you like to come to the podium, please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
MR. WHIDDEN: Good afternoon, Chairman and
Commissioners. For the record, my name is Grover Whidden. I'm the
regional manager for Florida Power and Light for Southwest Florida.
Today I want to encourage the commission to focus on the
overwhelming need for this facility. Today, although your facility has
served you well in the past, it has become woefully inadequate in
terms of technology and also the space of the facility.
This probably wouldn't have been so clear to me a year ago, but
having been through three major hurricanes in the past year and
experiencing those in some similar sized EOCs to your present facility
certainly really drives it home to me.
You need a modern, state-of-the-art emergency operation center
for the area the size of what is Metropolitan Collier County today.
Without it, you will be woefully ill-prepared for what you face in any
kind of major storm event, not to mention the other type of
catastrophes that have been discussed today.
Not only will the facility be inadequate for your own county
Page 140
May 24, 2005
functions, but it will be also inadequate for those of us in the utility
business, the communication industries, and all of the rest of the
community support functions that rely on this very important facility.
So we encourage you to focus on the need for this facility . We
believe your staff has done an excellent job of evaluating this facility
in tremendous depth in trying to minimize the impact to adjacent
property owners. And we just -- what we see here, as your staff
pointed out to you, is that if approval was not forthcoming, we're
going to be basically faced here in Collier County with an inadequate
emergency operations center for five years and, frankly, from where
we sit, that just is not acceptable. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Frank McGinty. He'll be
followed by Bob Murray.
MR. McGINTY: I'm Frank McGinty at 433 Countryside Drive,
and I've been a voter and resident in Collier County for 10 years.
And my concern -- and one other thing is my background, so you
understand where I'm talking from, is that I was a real estate broker, I
was a real estate appraiser, and I was president of the Howard County
Board of Realtors in Maryland, so I understand a little bit about real
estate and zoning.
My concern is that we haven't talked about the significance of
this zoning change of the height of the building and how it will affect
the surrounding properties. I believe that right next door to this
building is a commercial site down towards 7- Eleven that, right now,
has a restriction of a 40- foot high building.
Now, if you pass this zoning and put that building that I think
was reduced to 75 feet, except you have to put equipment on it, it goes
up to 85 feet or 90 feet -- which they don't say is the height of the
building, but that's what you look at -- if you do that, then you're, in
effect, making a change in the character of the neighborhood.
And I think each of you realize that when you have a change in
Page 141
May 24, 2005
the character of the neighborhood, it opens the door for subsequent
zoning changes.
And I'm certain that the man who owns the commercial property
next door is going to -- and should wisely put in for a zoning change
to allow him to put up a 90- foot building. And if this happens, in the
future we're going to be looking at Airport Road and Route 41 where
we're standing and see all this building from where we are.
Now, I know that you'll say, oh, this doesn't seem real, but it is
real, and you know how zoning changes grow. Once you open the
door and change the character of the neighborhood, you have changed
everything.
And we know that when we do that, make a change in a
commercial area, that improves the value of that commercial property.
And as a real estate appraiser, I know that when you increase the
value of the commercial property, you decrease the value of the
residential property around it. You can find that in any appraiser's
book.
So by passing this, you're going to be decreasing the value of the
properties in Countryside because you indirectly have changed their
location because you put up this building that never existed before.
And you know that in real estate, it's location, location, and location.
So if you vote yes for this change, you're voting for the investors
and not for the residential people who put you in office. So I request
that you please vote no. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Mr. McGinty.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Bob Murray. He'll be
followed by Fred Rogers.
MR. MURRAY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Bob Murray, and I am here as the president of the East Naples Civic
Association representing the residents of all of the communities.
I would like to read into the record a resolution that was made by
Page 142
May 24, 2005
the association.
Whereas, members of the East Naples Civic Association living
near the site of the proposed Collier County emergency operations
center on Santa Barbara Road north of Davis Boulevard did bring to
the attention of the board of the East Naples Civic Association the
concerns of those members as to the appropriateness of permitting
such a public-use structure to be erected at that location; and,
Whereas, thereafter, other members of the association and
members of the board visited the site and met with a number of
residents of Countryside and Falling Waters so as to see and hear the
extent of the concerns of those members and residents; and,
Whereas, the board, having heard and evaluated those concerns
and complaints of the residents did determine on that proposed
emergency operations center should be located away from the
intended site and relocated to land zoned for and suitable to such a
building as it is clearly out of character with the surrounding lands and
uses and does not conform to the intentions of the growth management
plan of Collier County to separate industrial, commercial, or like
applications from residential uses.
Now, therefore, it is resolved by the board of directors acting on
behalf of its members and others whose residences and businesses are
approximate to the intended site, that it most respectfully requests the
Board of Collier County Commissioners to refrain from declaring the
intended site as suitable and to disapprove the rezone application that
would permit construction of this or any other emergency operations
center building that the site location.
Adopted this day, May 4,2005, by the board, and myself as the
president, and John Hooley, Esquire, as secretary.
And may I say that it is an absolute fact that our members and all
of the residents understand the need for an emergency operations
center. There is no desire that we have to see that go down the tube in
any way. And I'm quite certain that if you do not approve it, that an
Page 143
May 24, 2005
alternative plan will come forth.
I would also ask you to look again at the rendering that was
shown here today, very pretty, and it shows what appears to be a great
deal of glazing. The planning commission did take exception to the
deviation requested having to do with 30 percent glazing, whereas 10
percent was being put in, and the concern was, my goodness, it's going
to break through, it will be penetrated, and the planning commission
was assured that it would not be, that it could not be.
So if the rendering looks really attractive, is that paint, is that
shadowing, what is it? I think it's a fine building, I think the idea is
wonderful. But as you've heard from the association's plea, we ask
you to refrain. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Mr. Murray.
MS. FILSON: Brad Rogers. He'll be followed by James Elson.
MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, for the record,
my name is Fred Rogers. I'm the president of the Berkshire Lakes
Master Homeowners' Association, and also a member of the Hazard
Mitigation Committee.
We support the program. It's very, very clear that the existing
emergency operating center is failing. The communications
breakdown during emergencies, and I think the last go-round of the
hurricanes that we saw further upstate demonstrated that very clearly.
The new emergency operating center is very necessary. We also
think that the location is very central. It's very properly located near
to communication sites, roadways, and things of that nature. And our
board discussed this whole issue, and we're fully in favor, and we
represent about 3,000 people. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is James Elson. He'll be
followed by John Cane.
MR. ELSON: My name is James Elson. I've been a resident of
Collier County for nearly 20 years. I am a professional real estate
Page 144
May 24, 2005
broker, have been for 30, and, of course, 20 years here.
I wanted to bring up the point that although change is a problem,
it always seems to affect communities. One of the things that I
personally experienced is that once something is in place, in other
words, should this building be built in this location, it tends to blend
off into the distance and it does not become the problem that everyone
perceIves.
I've also sold new properties and then resold those properties
again later and not had the problem with the second buyers seeing it as
such an issue as the first people before it's built.
Many of my customers have come to say, we like being near
public service because they support us and protect us.
So I'm just saying that it is a big problem when it changes, but
once it develops and becomes part of the community and the maturity
and the building landscape and the trees grow together, it isn't as big
of a problem as it is today. That's my only comment. I am in support
of the building.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is John Cane. He'll be followed
by Richard Kudelski.
MR. CANE: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
My name is John Cane. I live in the Vineyards.
Last year I completed training as a CERT member, community
emergency response team, and I became a licensed ham radio
operator, that's an amateur radio operator. I also teach undergraduate
science at Edison College.
I believe that the need for up-to-date, smoothly functioning,
robust and centrally located emergency operations center, is urgent.
Hurricane seasons are intensifying, and from what I read, they will
continue to do so for the next 20 to 30 years.
Now, regarding traffic. The Vineyards adjoins a shopping center,
a major shopping center, and a big medical complex, Cleveland
Page 145
May 24, 2005
Clinic, generating a lot more traffic than what is proj ected for the new
EOC building, and I'm happy to report that we get along just fine with
that.
But the CERT -- CERT team at the Vineyards now has about 30
members. Some of us are supporting that team and the community by
developing a network of two-way radios connecting to a base station
repeater. Everything is self-sufficient, battery powered, and backed
up by six licensed ham operators, anyone of whom can be in touch
with the emergency operations center when needed.
All these plans are great if we have someone to talk to. In other
words, it all depends on a functioning EOC. We urgently need to get
it out of the flood plane where, as I understand it, we now depend on
sandbags against storm surges.
Commissioners, as I understand it, your vote today will
determine if we get our new EOC two years from now or five years
from now. I strongly urge you to adopt the two-year plan, which is
the proposed location at Santa Barbara and Davis Boulevards.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Mr. Cane.
MS. FILSON: I assume Mr. Richard Kudelski isn't here.
MR. KUDELSKI: I didn't want to interrupt his presentation.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker after this gentleman will be
Angelo Quieto.
MR. KUDELSKI: Good afternoon. My name is Richard
Kudelski. I'm the president of Countryside Golf and Country Club,
and I represented 1,133 residences, and I'm probably the head of the
local NIMBY chapter.
And I want to thank you for your time, and I -- you're going to
hear a lot of speakers from Countryside, and I want you to take this as
a respectful opposition. We have several speakers, and we're hoping
we make some points and that you'll ask some tough questions to the
developers of that site of the -- who are proposing the EOC.
We at Countryside enthusiastically endorse the need for an EOC,
Page 146
May 24, 2005
but not there. We have accepted growth in our community, in our
neighborhood, without protest. We welcomed the creation of
Livingston Road that brought traffic down to Radio Road that
eventually ended up in front of our community and on Santa Barbara.
We supported the widening of Santa Barbara. We did not protest,
we did not put signs up. We understand the need for the widening of
Santa Barbara. We don't object to the new interchange that's being
created and developed on 75, which also is going to put more traffic
on Golden Gate, which is eventually going to be Santa Barbara.
We understand the need for the EMS station that is going to be
constructed, as a matter of fact, in the process of being constructed
right across from our facility right now. And I understand that there's
been an accommodation made to the developer of the Santa Barbara
Shores, which also might add to the noise and the traffic level on
Santa Barbara.
These projects will add more noise and more congestion to our
neighborhood; however, when the county proposes to build on 120 -- I
haven't heard the number yet, what it was, the total square footage, but
the information we had previously, is a 120,000 square feet (sic)
building, approximately 90 feet high, a communication tower of 175
feet within approximately 550 feet of some of our residences, we
object. This is too much.
Let me read an article from the East Naples Civic Association
newsletter. And this article was written February of 2005, and it was
authored by Commissioner Tom Henning.
On June 26th, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners created
a Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee to assist
staff with implementation of a community character plan for Collier
County. Over the last 12 months, the community has strived to
incorporate all the pertinent elements of community character and
smart growth initiatives into the complex basic building and
development laws of Collier County.
Page 147
>.~--
May 24, 2005
Our commitment is to blend retail, office, and residential into
harmony of structures for today's active residents, while maintaining
the beauty that we all have come to expect in Naples.
Look around. Concepts like Fifth Avenue will be popping up
everywhere around you, including East Naples. The smart growth
concept is just not for new development, but for redevelopment as
well. Look for smart growth to come to your area soon.
I don't think so. I don't think this is smart growth. On the
visualizer, we have an aerial photograph of the immediate area. And I
was listening to the presentation, and it was described as a big
building, big business office, and I can't think of another multi -story
business building office complex in our immediate neighborhood.
Look at this aerial photograph. There is no other commercial
buildings of that nature in this community. The proper place for this is
out in the Alligator Alley area and 951.
I took a little note. The alligator PUD was rejected because the
owner doesn't want to sell the property or lease, and you -- it wasn't
attractive enough for the county to lease it.
Whatever happened to eminent domain? If this is the proper
place to put it, that's where it should go. They've reduced the size of
the tower to try to accommodate it for what would fit in that parcel of
land, and by reducing it to 175 feet, the range is approximately four
miles. And wouldn't it be better to put that tower back out at --
Alligator Alley area and build a tower to 300 feet so it can reach out
all throughout Southwest Florida?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Kudelski, your time has expired.
I'm going to have to ask you to wrap it up, okay.
MR. KUDELSKI: Okay. What we're looking -- what's going to
happen in the future in our neighborhood is Santa Barbara is going to
turn out to be a major north/south corridor when it eventually is linked
to 41.
We are just worried, like the gentleman stated earlier, that once
Page 148
May 24, 2005
we allow a building of 90 feet to be put into our neighborhood, a
proliferation of high-rises is going to occur, and I don't think that is
smart growth, and I don't think that is compatible and consistent with
our neighborhood. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Angelo Quieto. He will be
followed by Marcia Feeney.
MR. QUIETO: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Angelo Quieto. That's spelled Q-U-I-E- T -0.
Okay. I just have a couple of things. I hope I get under this
three-minute thing here. Okay. There were notices sent out, like they
said, I think it was three, four years ago. A lot of us didn't get them
notices. They were sent to the wrong management company.
Now, where the fault lies, I don't know, but we didn't get them,
meaning me. I live within this 500 feet. If I did, I would have
probably went to the meetings then, and a lot of other people. And if
we, like I say, went at this meeting here, we probably could have had
a little more representation ourselves with the time, because I've only
been on this now since the notice was given to go to the planning
commission, which, again, I got the notice and, yes, I was there.
I spoke at that, and there was a lot of us that went to the planning
commission. As a result of that, the planning board commissioners
did have the integrity to see that there were so many issues and code
violations that they rej ected it 8-1. And as they stated, nice building,
wrong place. And I agree with that, nice building, wrong place.
So since they've revised -- revised the building like they came
here today, why didn't it go back to the planning board commission?
What were they afraid of? All right. I would have like to see it gone
back to them and then it come before you people again, but that's
neither here nor there.
I guess from what I understand, they don't have to, but usually
Page 149
"'~'----"^""""
May 24, 2005
that was the norm, from what I heard, that it would go back to them
and then come again to you.
Okay. My saying, my personal saying is, you don't move next to
the airport and then complain about the noise. So why ask that, I
mean? You don't put this building up in what I call mostly residential
neighborhood because it just does not fit there, so that's why I say,
don't, you know, move next to the airport and then complain about the
nOIse.
So that's all I have to say. I'm not in favor of this for those
reasons. And I thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Mr. Quieto.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Marcia Feeney. She'll be
followed by Flo Burnidge.
MR. MUDD: Ms. Burnidge, if we can have her come in after the
break, because you wanted to break at 2:30.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. We want to break at 2:30.
I'm sorry. Your name again, please?
MS. FEENEY: Marcia Feeney.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Ms. Feeney, go ahead.
MS. FEENEY: Good afternoon. Thank you for allowing us this
opportunity to express our views. My name is Marcia Feeney, and I'm
a year-round resident of Countryside Golf and Country Club.
After reading the staff report and subsequently the minutes of the
planning commission, it became apparent to me that their main
objection was to the site of the proposed emergency operations center
hereinafter referred to as the EOC.
I am sure the commissioners had seen the reasons cited earlier
why they preferred the EOC being built at the site they selected when
they cast their vote.
Commissioner Murray from the planning commissioner (sic)
said, quote, they don't belong on that property.
Page 150
May 24, 2005
Commissioner Mark Strain from said commission said, quote, he
likes the building design, but had problems with the location.
Again, another quote. I think this is a good project, but it's in the
wrong place. Has anybody looked at other places like 1-71 (sic) and
951 rather than in the middle of a primarily residential corridor?
Collier Emergency Management coordinator, Jim Yon Rutman
(sic) said, quote, the planning commission noted issues the last time
that we believe we've addressed, and, therefore, he believes there is no
reason to go back to the planning commission.
But the main objective from the planning commissions was to the
site, and that issue has not truly been addressed.
Mr. Murray, in the interview -- in an interview commented on the
revisions made by the Collier emergency management, has said,
quote, to me the most significant issue is the location. I stand by my
previous statement that the building doesn't belong in that location.
Their second objection has to do with the variances that have
been requested. Chairman Budd from the planning commission said,
approval as designed would ignore its incompatibility with the
neighborhood and require land use variances that would not be made
available to any other applicant.
He is talking about the small size of the land available for this
building, which is further constrained by the presence of an
emergency medical services facility, which forces the EOC building
up.
Quote, any private developer that requested land use variances on
this basis would be quickly told they were simply trying to squeeze
too many buildings on too little property.
Commissioner Schiffer, a member of the planning commission
said, quote, why should a county building be able to do something that
the private industry can't?
Commissioner Caron, another member of the commissioner (sic)
said that it's not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Page 151
May 24, 2005
I mention and cite the comments and concerns of the planning
commissioner (sic) because we are being told that the reason this has
not gone back to the planning commission and gone directly to the
Collier County Commissioner is because Mr. Yon Rutman (sic) said
he believes the emergency management has addressed the concerns
and objections set forth by the planning commissioners.
And I ask you to listen to the voices of your own planning
commission, some of whom I have quoted. Their concerns have not
been addressed since the planning commission has voted 8-1 against
rezoning, nor have the concerns of the Countryside Golf and Country
Club been addressed.
Please vote no for the rezoning. Thank you for your time and
your consideration.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Ms. Feeney.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to take a 10-minute break.
We'll be back at 2:40.
(A 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, Mr. Mudd.
We have a quorum, and we are going to continue this hearing,
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Flo Burnidge. She'll be
followed by Wayne Sherman.
MS. BURNIDGE: For the record, my name is Flo Burnidge. I
am a resident of Countryside Country Club and a citizen of Collier
County.
I firmly believe that Collier County needs a safe, secure,
storm-resistant EOC; however, I will show that the planned building
should not be located where it is proposed because it would not be
compatible with the existing or planned developments in the area, also
Page 152
May 24, 2005
that it does not meet any of the existing zoning requirements.
The document titled Bembridge Emergency Services Complex A
Community Facilities planned unit development as revised April 11 th,
2005, in its statement of compliance states, and I will quote, the land
uses of the CFPUD will be consistent with growth policies, land
development regulations, and comprehensive planning objectives of
each of the elements of the Collier County Growth Management Plan
for the following reasons:
Item three states that the project development is compatible and
complimentary to existing and future surrounding land uses as
required by policy 5.4 of the future land use element, or FLU.
Item six states, the Bembridge ESC CFPUD is compatible with
and complimentary to existing and future surrounding land uses and is
considered to be consistent with policy 5.4 of the FLU, end quote.
This building does not, and I repeat, does not, meet the
requirements of Collier County's Growth Management Plan nor policy
5.4 of the FLU.
The EOC was presented to the Collier County Planning
Commission on February 3rd, 2005. In that meeting, Commissioner
Caron stated that currently no structure in the area is taller than 30
feet.
Collier County has a well-thought-out growth management plan
which contains 5.4, denying the building of an 80-foot structure in this
area, which requires compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.
This neighborhood is mostly low-rise, residential, and small retail
businesses, not a tall government fortress.
Both Commissioners Caron and Strain also cited the land
development code, section 4.07.02, which indicates that this proposed
80- foot tall structure blockhouse is consistent -- is inconsistent with
the surrounding neighborhood areas and does not meet the established
country (sic) growth management plan.
The Bembridge emergency services document, as revised on
Page 153
_" k._"_·_'_
May 24, 2005
April 11 th, 2005, states in paragraph 1.4, B, quote, the zoning of this
property prior to the effective date of the approved CFPUD document
was planned unit development. That PUD was approved by the
county board of commissioners in 1998, ordinance 98-86, for
residential church use and a nursing home, end quote.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ma'am, your time's expired. Could you
wrap it up for us?
MS. BURNIDGE: There are better locations for the EOC
supporting facilities which would be safer, more accessible, and more
practical for EOC operations.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Wayne Sherman. He'll be
followed by Dom Festa.
MR. SHERMAN: I'm going to ask that Mr. Festa be able to
come here, because he's going to be using this ugraph, right?
MR. FESTA: Can I wait until he finishes?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can do it whenever you'd like.
MR. SHERMAN: Okay.
MR. FESTA: Thank sir.
MR. SHERMAN: My name is Wayne Sherman. I'm a full-time
citizen of Collier County, and I'm here to discuss the communication
requirements for the EOC.
I recently retired as a communications engineer and computer
scientist with the federal government. I also was a long-range planner
for department of defense.
I have worked with computer and communications systems for
NORAD Cheyenne Mountain Emergency Operations Complex, the
strategic air command emergency operations center, the GPS satellite
system control center, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff command center in
the Pentagon, and classified alternate national command centers on the
Page 154
,.."------.,...,.>..__...~-
May 24, 2005
knee cap, at cydar (sic), and Round Hill. I am an expert in
communications and computer systems for emergency operations.
I come here today to talk about the Collier County emergency
operations planning concern with the need to access fiber-optic cables.
The EOC planners have consistently stated that one of the critical
factors in choosing a site for the EOC was access to underground
fiber-optic cable, and the site on Santa Barbara was the one proposed
location that would provide this access.
Mr. Summers testified on February 3rd, Collier County Planning
Commission meeting, the fiber-optic connection gives me redundancy
and resiliency, where I would spend probably five million or 10
million or 15 million dollars more just to be able to come up with
some wire type connectivity.
I did some investigating and contacted a reputable fiber-optic
cable provider and asked them to give me a ballpark estimate of the
type of extended -- to extend -- the cost to extend underground
fiber-optic cable another two and a half miles. This would make it
available at a location along Collier Boulevard north of 1-75.
I told him to assume the cable must run under two major
roadways and an interstate highway. They said some permitting
would be required, but they would -- and they would need to be
conservative in order to cover contingencies; however, the estimate I
was given was that it would cost no more than 200,000 to $300,000.
That would include conduit, two cable runs for redundancy, as well as
a tie-in to existing system, and termination at a desired site.
This is a long way from the -- Mr. Summers' estimate of five to
15 million, and would provide desired fiber-optic connectivity.
Also, having been a telephone company engineer for part of my
career, I would be very much surprised if Sprint did not have plans to
extend their fiber-optic grid to at least 951 within five to 10 years.
In addition, I hope that EOC planners are considering that
satellite and cable providers can provide high speed data voice links to
Page 155
May 24, 2005
their television -- on their television grid. Also microwave is still a
viable option.
Also, the state-of-the-art and cellular communications have been
exploding in the last two to three years. GM OnStar has demonstrated
how GPS satellite systems can be used to communica -- for
communications and commands.
Already cellular technologies in the 2.4 to 9.6 gigahertz range
can be bought off the shelf or provided by communications utilities
and are not nearly in the five million to 15 million dollar range that
win provide high band width, redundancy, reliability fiber-optics.
These wireless technologies even -- needed even within fiber
connectivity and also are far more viable in emergency situations that
communicate with widely scattered resources that may have no way to
access cable or wire systems.
Also, we are talking about a much di -- a much greater range
using commercial satellite -- or using commercial cellular towers.
Please consider this with deciding the issue and'rezone the
Bembridge PUD. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, sir.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Dom Festa. He'll be followed
by Joseph Hinkley.
MR. FESTA: Honorable Chairperson and additional Honorable
Commissioners, it's my pleasure to speak to you today on this
important matter, and I have deep concern. So I'll try to relax here and
hope you people can hear me. I'll speak real loud so everybody stays
awake, and I can't hear that bell --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Speak louder.
MR. FESTA: I can't hear that bell, Mr. Chairperson, so I may
speak beyond it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll remind you.
MR. FESTA: I'm the kind of guy, I want the facts, please, just
Page 156
_.~~..._,,~.,
May 24, 2005
the facts. So I have discrepancies with some of the things, in fairness
to these staff people, in the facts they presented, and what -- some of
the facts I'm going to present. There's a discrepancy, and you folks
are going to decide which ones are the facts.
My name is Dominic Festa. I am a citizen -- proud citizen of this
great county. We feel safe, and with new EOC in a different location,
I'll even feel safer.
I live in Countryside. I'm on the master board of directors, near
the county emergency management office who wants to build the
emergency operations center. I am here to speak against the location
of the EOC at this site for safety and mission reasons.
Now, if I ask the whole audience what's the number one criteria,
if I had to pick a place for an EOC, it's not going to be fiber-optics, it's
not going to be transportation, it's not going to be highways. It's got to
be survivable, it's got to be sustainable, it's got to be operable. That's
number one to me.
I may have to take an alternate site to make sure that building,
that's going to help me when I'm in harm's way, be safe, and all the
other residents. That's critical to me. The number one criteria has got
to be survivable. And I think -- if you do everything else, all the other
criterias, you don't address that one, you haven't done anything for the
county .
I firmly believe that the site chosen by the emergency
management office is not a safe or practical place to build the EOC,
due to potential of this site, the storm surge flooding. I plan to support
this claim in this presentation.
Document, Bembridge Emergency Services Complex, a
community facilities planned unit development, as revised April 11 th,
2005, states in paragraph 1.5 -- this is where I have different facts --
that the elevations within the property site -- somebody asked that
question earlier. One of the commissioners -- is not 16 feet, but 9.5 to
10.5. The present site that you folks are thinking about building an
Page 157
May 24, 2005
EOC is 9.5 to 10.5 above mean. Not high, but mean sea level.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Your time has expired. Is there someone
who has registered to speak who will cede their time to you, Dom?
MR. FESTER: Is there anybody, please? Yes, the name?
MR. RONDO: Frank Rondo.
MR. FESTER: Frank Rondo, okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead, Dom.
MR. FESTER: Okay. I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
Now -- and it's even in their document about that height.
However, Collier County's All Hazards Guide, right here, that I read
diligently every year, as well as FEMA documentation per quote by
Max -- Mayfield National Hurricane Center coordinator, clearly states
that a category three hurricane can generate up to 16.5 foot storm
surge, and that a category four or five hurricane can generate up to
22.3 foot storm surge. The All Hazards Guide shows in its centerfold
a map.
Is that map up yet? Do we have a map?
Thank you, Len.
That the proposed site is situated in an area that could be flooded
up to 10 feet of storm surge water in a category three, four, or five
hurricane.
Even in the county's matrix, they said that a category four or five
-- again, I'm back to the facts. Either I'm right or they're right. A
category four, five on that proposed site, the storm surge would be
minimal, minimal. That's what they said. I say it would be severe.
Now, when I asked 10 people what's the greatest threat to human
life of a hurricane, they -- wind or storm surge, eight people told me it
was wind. They're wrong. It's storm surge, storm surge.
Now, the All Hazard Guide shows in the centerfold, that the
proposed site is situated in an area that could be flooded. I made that
point.
During testimony before the February 3rd planning commission
Page 158
"._._-~~~_._-"'-
May 24, 2005
meeting, the school was stated to be an essential part of support in
housing for EOC personnel during a hurricane and had been built
strong enough to stand hurricane force winds.
This school might stand hurricane force winds, however, it
wouldn't be usable if flooded. The emergency power motor generators
would also be subject to flooding if not placed on stilts.
In the case of an approaching major storm, the staff, most of
whom in the future will probably live north and east of the proposed
site, will be asked to leave their homes and families and travel to the
site against the tide of fleeing evacuees.
If they can reach the proposed site before or during the storm,
they could be trapped there for days without a place to sleep and
without power if the generators are flooded due to possible storm
surge inundation and with no way to evacuate due to flooding, no
operational vehicles and storm debris blocking the access roads.
The land area of the site is also too small to provide adequate
landing space for emergency support or evacuation helicopters, let
alone other emergency aircraft. The EOC just doesn't belong there.
EOC may look imposing and safe, but it really may not be able to
serve the mission for which it is intended.
Okay. I want to say this now, as far as size, from 900 feet to
126,000 feet, 140 times. Broward County, 1.7 million people; Collier
County 300,000 people; 42,000 square feet, Broward County; 126
max, thousand feet here; forty feet high; we're 80 feet high. Okay.
Now --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Dom, you've gone through another time
segment here.
MR. FESTER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you have somebody else?
MR. FESTER: I want to thank you and all those who agree,
please stand up for me. Please stand up, stand up, stand up.
(Applause.)
Page 159
-------,.-
May 24, 2005
MR. FESTER: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Dom.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Joseph Hinkley. He'll be
followed by Judy Olitsky.
MR. HINKLEY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My topic is .
based on something I found in a Heritage Foundation report entitled,
Preparing Responders to Respond; the Challenges to Emergency
Preparedness in the 21 st Century.
The significant thing that I read in here is that emergency control
centers are regarded by the Heritage Foundation as high-profile
terrorist targets. Now, this is Naples, Florida. Not very likely the
terrorists are very interested in us.
However, there is a lesson to be learned from a previous incident.
The City of New York, where I was born and raised, built a $15
million emergency management control center at Seven World Trade
Center. It was inspired by the first attack on the World Trade Center
and the gas attacks on the Japanese subway system.
Now, there was some controversy about the placement of this
emergency control facility. Well, what went out was, let's put it in the
World Trade Center complex. And the extreme irony of it all is that
that facility, which was designed to mitigate a terrorist attack, was, in
fact, blown up by that same terrorist attack. It took the city three days
to reorganize and get it's command and control center situated in Pier
92.
Now, as my colleague Dom said, that in an emergency -- and our
emergency is more likely a hurricane. Last year we dealt with four
hurricanes. The predictions are that there'll be like hurricanes this
year. Let's hope not. However, the analogy, the comparison of an
emergency control facility that's under water, unusable is striking.
And my lesson was learned in the World Trade Center. I hope we'll
all learn that lessen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Page 160
_,_.,.._^____..___"._o.__·_._"__~~
May 24, 2005
(Applause.)
MR. HINKLEY: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Judy Olitsky. She'll be
followed by Philip Rosenbach.
MS. OLITSKY: Thank you. My name is Judy Olitsky. My
husband and I are year-round residents residing in the community of
Countryside. Our residence is in the proximity of and faces the
proposed EEO (sic) site.
And it is a great facility. No one here would deny that; however,
even listening today, it is becoming more than just that. It is
becoming a county center number 2. It's an ancillary to this. It's
becoming as big as this facility, and the location, as so many others
before have testified, just does not lend itself to this facility.
It is appropriate, it is needed, it is desired and wanted by the
people of Naples, but this is not the correct site for it in this residential
community.
It is not consistent and it is not compatible in spite of what the
county staff says that it is. Changing all these zoning codes and
requirements and asking for deviation upon deviation, trying to
squeeze this facility onto this small area of land just is -- logically
shows that it does not fit here. It has no room for expansion.
And as I listened today, of all the things that could possibly
happen here, I even become more and more concerned for the
activities and what is going to go on there.
The traffic. It has been testified as far as the traffic report, based
on 99,000 square feet -- the building is now approximately 125,000
square feet -- with all these other things going on, the traffic will
dramatically increase. It is also on a corner where we have the Boys
and Girls Club. That has been in the newspaper in this past year
touting that it's going to be expanding, servicing 1,000 boys and girls
in Naples a day. Those people, those students have to be transported.
We're talking about additional traffic.
Page 161
-"..-."---"-,-_.,"',..._----"-_.__.~.,._-~.~--..-...,.-
May 24, 2005
We have the traffic at the school as well. This is going to become
a major problem. And I don't wonder if it's not going to become a
problem like Airport-Pulling and Golden Gate with all the cars and
vehicles and maintenance and trucks and school buses and private
vehicles going up and down this area.
It's the wrong place for this facility, a great facility.
So the traffic volume is a tremendous concern to me. Also, it is
an administrative building of nine to five working hours. It has been
testified that it's going to be a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week facility.
There is much that is going to be going on. People are not just
coming into their office building and sitting in a quiet office building.
There's going to be training exercises going on. They talk about a
media room. These -- all these things are becoming magnets to this
place. This is only going to grow and develop further.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you could wrap it up, please.
MS.OLITSKY: Okay. I'll just make one more point that has not
been mentioned so far that I'm concerned about, and that is of
incinerators. It is in the report. It has not been addressed by anyone.
Certainly all these people in the building using this building,
especially in cases of emergencies where limited access exists,
incinerators were put in there to take care of the needs of the people.
People create garbage. That has to be dealt with.
I'm concerned about the incinerators that are put into this
proposal and ask you to consider that as another negative for this site.
Livingston Road has better access. There are four exits that are easily
available onto 1-75. Anything along Livingston Road would be good,
Edison Community College down in Lely has room available as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ma'am, okay. Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Philip Rosenbach.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: He'll be followed by Robert Jenkins.
MR. ROSENBACH: My name is Philip Rosenbach, and I am a
Page 162
,__,___,,__,_'''__,W,,_' ..~...,~..--.,.-
May 24, 2005
resident of Collier County. My background is, I'm a structural
ironworker. I've worked on numerous projects in the Chicago-lying
area, I've done a lot of tower work in my time. I've traveled
throughout the United States working on these different types of radio
towers. I also was involved in setting up a tower on Antigua in 1968
when they set off one of the moonshots.
I have to -- I have to congratulate Representative Henning for his
remark regarding the tower and asking if it was tied off. The minute
they talked about this tower being a free-standing tower of 175 feet
without having any support cables, it brought a red flag up to me, as it
did to him. And I can't understand how a tower like this can be
erected and have a force hurricane of four or five with winds, and this
tower would stand this.
I believe that this tower -- that this facility should be moved
farther away from our area, supposedly -- supportably ( sic) center of
the area of Collier County, that way they can build a taller tower,
possibly the 700 feet that they talked about, and the tower could be
guyed off, and you wouldn't have to rely on hand-held phones and so
forth to transport information to this area, to this area, and this area.
This operation with this tower would be able to handle this situation.
Also, during my career as an ironworker, my credentials always
was that I sat on the tower commission for the United States
Government, and I was also on record with the -- with the Federal
Reserve talking about these types of antennas and the structure and
how strong they can support, wind supports.
I believe that this building should be relocated. I believe if they
do that, they can build a tower, support the tower properly, and be able
to communicate all through Collier County without relying on
telephones, hand-held receivers, and so forth, to get the various
positions.
Thank you for your time.
(Applause).
Page 163
<.,-",",~,,-_._~
May 24, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Mr. Rosenbach.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Robert Jenkins. He'll be
followed by Carolyn Arsenault.
MR. JENKINS: My name is Bob Jenkins. I'm a citizen of
Collier County. I'm a full-time resident. I'm on President's Council
for Falling Waters, and I'm here to talk to you about the site for the
Collier County emergency management office.
I live near the site where the county management office wants to
build the emergency operations center. I'm here to speak for location
of the EOC at a better site than the one proposed by the emergency
management planners.
I firmly believe that the Collier County emergency management
office could choose a much better location for the planned EOC. I
will give reasons in this presentation as to the advantage of at least one
other site over the proposed management office.
The emergency management office has already indicated that
there may be a need to store equipment and supplies and to provide
services at such locations as the Collier County fairground or the
Immokalee Airport.
For that reason, with its expected population growth, safety from
storm surge, and source of full-time employees, this might be a better
EOC location.
This area is listed on page 2 of the 2005 Collier County All
Hazards Guide as the only area in Collier County that may be fully
safe from storage surge; however, I plan to concentrate on one
proposed -- I plan to concentrate on one proposal by Collier County
Planning Commissioner Strain during the emergency management
office presentation to that body on February 3rd.
Commissioner Strain suggested locating it in an industrial area
near the intersection of Interstate Highway 75 and Collier Boulevard
for both the zoning and accessibility reasons.
This area is now becoming the single most important
Page 164
-_..__.....~-"._----
May 24, 2005
transportation hub in Collier County. It's accessible by land
transportation for both north and east coast, it has supposedly been
discounted by the EOC planning commission for some -- for two
reasons. One is traffic congestion and the other available land.
First, by the time EOC is built, plans should be well underway to
correct the traffic congestion problems, and second, there is now lots
of open land that is already zoned for business and industry, and some
of it is already owned by the county. If the emergency operations
planners were given clear direction to site the EOC here, it could be
done.
Now I'll give you multiple reasons why a site near I-75/Collier
Boulevard intersection would be better than the one now proposed. It
primarily has to do with the support to facilities and services available
at 1-7 5/Collier Boulevard versus the one proposed. Here are two
charts, one showing problems with the EOC planner's recommended
site and one showing advantages of the 1-7 5/Collier Boulevard site.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sir, could you wrap it up for us? Your
time has expired.
MR. JENKINS: I have here -- and I can provide copies -- two
pages. One is the cons and one is the pros of moving it from its
present proposed site to the 1-7 5/Collier County (sic) intersection.
The idea of the EOC is an idea we all endorse. The problem is,
it's the wrong site, it's the wrong location. There must be better
locations, and I urge that -- the planning board to look at the
1- 7 5/Collier Boulevard area for a better location.
Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, sir.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Carolyn Arsenault. She'll be
followed by Donna Bonomo.
MS. ARSENAULT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name
is Carolyn Arsenault, and I am an owner at Countryside. Countryside
Page 165
..._---~
May 24, 2005
is not a community that cries wolf.
When Santa Barbara went from two to four lanes, we didn't
object. It's now going from four to six lanes, we're not objecting.
When the storage facility was put in right next to us, we didn't object.
When the domestic animal shelter was put in, we didn't object. When
the boys and girls community building went in, we did not object.
When the EMS facility was approved, we have not objected.
Today we are here to object with many good reasons and
hopefully you're listening.
This is just from me now. Wherever we go there are rules and
regulations, and most of us abide by them and respect why they are
put in place. There are always a few who think the rules do not apply
to them, which subsequently affect the rest of us.
Changing rules and regulations when it is for the betterment of
many is done all the time. The changes this commission maybe wishes
to make in this residential does not fit that bill.
There were rules and regulations put in place to safeguard the
development in this area, and now our elected officials want to change
those safeguards in order to accommodate a proj ect that they would
never allow any other developer.
Countryside has a few -- has requested a few times to change our
PUD in order to extend our parking and maybe put in a tennis court,
and was refused, and with good reason. Yet this commission finds no
problem, or hopefully doesn't -- or will find a problem with changing
the PUD on this site where they want to erect a large building in this
residential area.
When is enough enough for this area? If this building is built, the
door is open for other large buildings.
How many of you on this commission would vote to change all
the safeguards in your residential area in order to place this building
next to your homes? Why is this meeting being held now after the
majority of owners have already returned to their second homes in
Page 166
May 24, 2005
other states?
This is an important issue for all residents and consideration
should have been given to all the owners by this commission by
holding a meeting in a timely fashion so all who wanted to be heard
could be heard. And I'm thankful for how many turned out today. I
really didn't expect that there would be this many, but you wouldn't
have been able to keep them in this room had you had it in February
or March.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Donna Bonomo. She'll be
followed by -- and I believe this name is Robert Land. I'm not sure
about the first name.
MS. BONOMO: Thank you. My name is Donna Bonomo. I am
a year-round resident at Crown Pointe off of Davis Boulevard. Thank
you.
My mother resides at Countryside, and I'd like to highlight for
you some of the reasons I feel so strongly that the proposal before you
should be rej ected.
A major concern, of course, is the size and appearance of the
proposed building and the adverse impact it would have on the
neighborhood. I won't belabor the point well made by others regarding
the incompatibility of this complex with the neighborhood, but I
would like to raise an issue regarding possible expansion and growth.
Mr. Summers spoke at the planning commission hearing about a
possible need for expansion in about 10 years. That -- that, I think,
188 -- page 188 of the record. Given the small size of the property
site, the only way to expand would be upward. We'd be right back
where we were in terms of height.
It's been suggested that as an alternative, some of the offices
could later be moved out, but wouldn't that defeat one of the stated
objectives to house everyone together? This just doesn't seem to be
Page 167
_C^,,_ ," .__..._._~~--..,..-
May 24, 2005
good long-term planning.
Officials have not provided us assurances that they will not, in
fact, come back later looking to expand the building.
And I believe greater consideration needs to be given to area
residents with legitimate concerns about noise, traffic, obstructed
views of the horizon, and decreased property values, as well as to the
serious safety and potential liability issues this would pose.
The building redesign does not address these issues or the
fundamental problem of location. County officials have offered
various rationales for their site selection, none of which stand up to
scrutiny.
For instance, officials have cited the need for a location outside
the flood zone, yet the selected property is within the area subject to
storm surge.
Importance has been placed on it being centrally located;
however, given the size of Collier County, I would think county
officials would be able to find other viable cites meeting this criterion
that would even be more centrally and strategically located to Santa
Barbara if the search were not self-limited essentially to county-owned
property .
It makes no sense to me to exclude from consideration locations
east of Collier Boulevard, which would be safer from storm surge.
According to a recent article in the Naples Daily News, it's
projected that the majority of Collier County's population will some
day, in fact, reside east of Collier Boulevard. Again, we are to be
thinking long term.
The presence of fiber-optic cable and radio connections, another
reason cited by the county for the site selection, should not be
determinative. It's always possible to build communication systems.
It will never be possible to make an oversized building fit properly
onto an undersized parcel of land or to overcome all of the problems
associated with trying to do so.
Page 168
,.__."-,._...."--'"--._"-_.....,,.".~...._._,.,..~
May 24, 2005
And the only other comment I would like to make in wrapping it
up is that it's obvious -- it seems obvious to me that those responsible
for site selection have not seriously considered other viable sites,
apparently choosing to focus instead on convenience and cost. Again,
I believe that this is poor long-range planning.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
(Applause ).
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Robert Land. He'll be
followed by Don Peterson.
MR. LAND: Commissioners, good afternoon. My name is
Robert Land. I have visited Naples since 1970 and have been a
resident, together with my wife, at Countryside since 1992.
I knew Naples as it was, as many of you have. I know Naples as
it has grown. I think I can see where Naples is going in the future.
Great progress has been made. The city is beautiful and will get
better. We need this center, but to place it where it is, I feel, is not
correct.
I have no intention of going into the details. My colleagues from
Countryside and elsewhere have specified what they feel, the different
rules that are being broken, and so on. That is not my feeling. I'm here
simply to summarize what a great group of people living in that area
would like to preserve.
Yes, as a lady mentioned a moment ago, we've accepted Santa
Barbara, we've accepted many other things. I'm not sure those
elevations protecting the building will stand up when Santa Barbara is
completed. I fear a lot of that tree line will go down, and perhaps it
will be another 10, 12 years before we will see adequate protection if
we don't want to look at that building.
However, we need to preserve Naples, we need to provide Naples
with the services it requires. Let us review this. We ask you to review
it. Look for another site so that that area, which was primary
residential, can be maintained that way. Thank you.
Page 169
-~^-,_.-"
""'---"""-"-"'-'-
May 24, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Don Peterson. Mr. Peterson
will be followed by Wayne Sallade.
MR. PETERSON: Afternoon, Commissioners. Don Peterson,
fire chief for Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District.
I, first of all, would certainly share with you, I can appreciate the
residents' concerns, having to recently, in the last few months, go
through the same process for fire station activities.
Very similar comments were made. Communication towers,
footprint size, type of activity, hours of operation, all very key issues,
and certainly everybody has the best interest at the forefront.
What I wanted to share with you this afternoon though was, we
do support the facility. I would share with you the concern of
downsizing the facility.
One of the things we find in government is when we build a
facility, a few months after we're in it, we have no room to expand.
One of the things, having been a 25-year resident of the county now,
24 of those years in emergency services, the concerns of the delay of
relocations and all of the associated activities with that that would
further delay the project out there.
There are a lot of activities. Regardless of hurricane season,
we've got brush fire seasons as well. We've just been very fortunate to
this point, but those are also major activities that have happened to
Collier County from '85 to the '89, '90, again in '98, and 2000, we had
some major fires.
So I would share with you that windows on the facility, we
addressed -- tried to address that in our facility as well. The computer
modeling identified you don't want 30 percent windows on the face of
the building.
Survivability use of the facility is going to disappear when you
have the sustained winds of 50, 60 miles an hour, and you need a
Page 170
"._-<~.~"-"
-~~""'_._-"""-"--'-------,.-
May 24, 2005
facility that's going to withstand a lot of abuse by Mother Nature, and
that's the whole idea of the facility. It has to function when everybody
else is malfunctioning out there. We've got to put order to the chaos.
We need to be reliable communication-wise.
If you don't use high towers, it has to be some type of satellite or
underground activity . We found through the hurricane events, Sprint
lost service, underground connections, whether they had generators or
didn't have generators at remote sites, which, more than once, had a
significant impact. We were completely out of communications
except for one satellite telephone. Satellite phones and issues require
ground antennas or antennas on the top of the roof.
Being an amateur extra class operator myself, towers are okay
with me. Height is better. If you're going to use a Simplex site-to-site
issue, you've got to have height to have reliability.
Originally what -- there was a company that identified a 200- foot
tower could be constructed, monopole type tower. They did quite a
search on that, but they are survivable.
So I would share with you the hardened facility, if you do have to
relocate potentially, I would suggest that if it can't be done here,
potentially using an overlay district or creating an overlay.
Zoning for emergency services is not there. We're all wrestling
with it. In that overlay activity, you could determine -- your building
would be the highest. You could determine that your building has less
windows.
Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speak is Wayne Sallade. He'll be
followed by Nicole Gassaway.
(Applause.)
MR. SALLADE: Commissioners, my name is Wayne Sallade.
I'm, for 18 years, the director of emergency management in Charlotte
County. I'm a Florida professional emergency manager, also hold a
Page 171
".--.----..'.'----.,.-
May 24, 2005
professional development series certification from FEMA, I'm also a
certified hurricane expert in the courts of Florida and have testified on
numerous occasions to that effect.
We've shed a lot of tears in Charlotte County since August 13th
of last year, as we were ground zero for Hurricane Charley. I've shed
tears for Collier County in watching this pitch battle go back and
forth, reading in the Naples Daily News about the zoning
commission's decision to recommend denial of this proposed site.
Please do not waste time. You must hasten a decision. Again,
there are people, I understand, who have great investments in
property, they've invested their lives in the places they live, but I
implore you to understand the need to move forward, and move
forward with haste.
What I'm watching here is an emergency manager's nightmare. I
understand the concerns of these citizens, but I remind them, there is
no "I" in emergency management. It is a mind set that a community
must adopt and must embrace if you are to survive. We learned that.
When I evacuated the emergency operations center, too late, I
might add, and just made it to my alternate emergency operations
center that Friday afternoon, it was the first of three times we were
forced to evacuate that site last summer.
I prayed at that moment that the plans for the new emergency
operations center, which were laying on my desk, would still be there
when I got back.
We've gone from a $3 million, 12,000 square foot design that
was just EOC and dispatch, to an $18 million, 75,000 square foot all
purpose public safety complex that will include fire, EMS, sheriff,
dispatch, and emergency management and EOC. That is the way
Florida must look at the next 20 to 25 years.
We cannot wait. We cannot keep going back to the drawing
boards. We cannot take these sites and build them in the middle of the
Everglades. They must be accessible. The communications must be
Page 172
May 24, 2005
close at hand, and the ability for the elected officials and others who
might need to be there in any type of emergency -- because we're
talking about all hazards, not just hurricanes -- it must be relatively
close to the urban center.
I thank you so much for the opportunity to travel down here
today and to share my concerns and my feelings with you. Please
support the construction on the selected site of this facility. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Mr. Sallade.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Nicole Gassaway. She'll be
followed by Floyd Chapin.
MS. GASSAWAY: Hi, Commissioners. Thank you for listening
and being patient with all of us today.
I do believe that this is an appropriate use for this area. I think
when you look at the way the road system is designed, it's the only
way to get north, east, west and, hopefully, in the future, south to 41.
It's difficult because it is a small lot, but I know that they're
working hard to design a building that will fit what needs to be there.
I'll be selfish and ask you to make it a visual asset to the community.
There is a small error on the master plan. The property to the east
is not vacant. Enclave at Naples is there with 360 property owners
that I do not believe were notified about any of the activities going on
because it just converted from apartments to condominium. And I
have four units at that property.
I have direct visual access to the proposed building. And I'm
very grateful, as I look at the plan, to see that I'm going to be
overlooking a future potential lake or water management area.
What I'd like to say is that, are there plans for a school expansion
into the lower part of Tract C? So what's going to happen on that?
Will there be some sort of barrier? Right now that portion is a play
area for the children at the school. So will there be some sort of
barrier or a fence that would prevent the children from getting into that
Page 173
..'.-.~'~-_.~~
May 24, 2005
water management area? So just to make sure the kids are going to be
safe.
I would encourage maybe some littoral plantings for the lake,
make it look visually nice, not just the normal little slopey yucky grass
that goes around the edges. You know, do something where, you
know, wildlife, birds, things can enjoy the area as well, because we've
lost a lot of open area with the building of new master plan
developments to the east.
I know there's been a lot of discussion from the residents at
Countryside about what's going to impact them visually, but there's
been no discussion of the line of sight from Enclave at Naples, so I
would encourage the landscaping planners and the architects to take
into consideration what is viewed from the rear as well as from the
front of the building on Santa Barbara.
And I would like to ask that there be some shielding of the
parking lot lights so that those don't shine directly into the units at the
Enclave at Naples.
Lastly, I'm just -- I'm excited to see that the county is planning in
this direction. I've lived in Atlanta, San Francisco, many large
metropolitan areas. I've done contingency planning for many large
corporations, and I'm very excited to see the county looking to the
future, and it definitely was made clear to us that it was necessary
based on what happened to us last fall.
And I just want to thank you again for being patient. But I do
believe that this is desperately needed, and I cannot think of another
area in the county, based on our current road structure, where you're
going to have the access that you're going to -- that you're going to
need to get the right people to the right place at the right time to be
able to communicate.
So I encourage you to accept this plan, and I just hope that --
again, I'll be selfish and hope that you make it be visually pleasing for
my units right on the corner there. Thank you.
Page 174
^.. ------...-
May 24, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Floyd Chapin. He'll be
follow by Walter --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Jaskiewicz.
MS. FILSON: That's it. Thank you.
MR. CHAPIN: Thank you, Commissioners, for allowing me to
speak today. My name is Floyd Chapin. I'm president of the Sapphire
Lakes Master Association consisting of 500 homeowners, over 2,000
residents. Weare here today to support -- and we are neighbors of this
complex -- to support the addition of this EOC building.
We think it's vital for not only our neighborhood, but all of
Collier County. It's imperative that we move forward with this as
opposed to delaying it, putting it off, or finding another place. How
many times have you sat up here and heard, we love it, but don't build
it in my neighborhood? You've heard that how many times?
We really need that facility. It's a must. The traffic will be
minimal. You've got to go to four or six lanes on Santa Barbara
Boulevard. I don't think that's going to be a problem at all.
I think the -- Mr. Summers and the Golden Gate fire chief have
laid out a very good plan on how to approach this and use it to the
maximum extent possible for all the citizens of Collier County.
I think that you should with enthusiasm adopt this and move
forward, and let's get on with building the building. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Walter Jaskiewicz.
MR. JASKIEWICZ: Jaskiewicz, close enough.
MS. FILSON: And he will be your final speaker.
MR. JASKIEWICZ: Thank you. As you heard, my name is
Walter Jaskiewicz. I'm a resident of Marco Island, and I'm the
chairman of the Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee,
that is comprised of over 21 disaster volunteer groups, as well as
Page 175
-~"~
May 24, 2005
emergency response agencies from throughout our county.
Now, our main task is to better prepare our citizens for disaster,
either manmade or natural. This is a task that was decreed by
President Bush following 9/11 with the forming of the citizen corps
within the Department of Homeland Security.
We should all be aware after having a front row seat to last year's
destruction to our neighboring county's EOC, just how important it is
to have a modern, updated EOC that is the main life support system to
provide emergency response to the citizens of Collier County in time
of need.
The concept and planning for the new EOC site was evaluated by
engineers to be most conducive to serving the needs of our county. It
was done in a responsible way with much considerations to our
environment, surrounding populous impact, cost factors, and planning
to meet the ever-increasing growth of Collier County.
There has been dramatic improvements to our county's
preparedness, but our county emergency department understands that
the winds of changing technologies will blow them away unless they
have the resource of a new EOC planned to house them.
The Collier County Citizen Corps is encompassed with a web of
wisdom that is a resource consisting of learned and wise individuals,
both private and professionals, who have graduated from the school of
experience in disasters.
We have studied the planned site and the concept for the
proposed EOC, and we recommend that the plan be approved with as
little delay as possible so we in Collier County can be prepared and
ready. Let's please consider that as of April 2005, our county had an
estimate of three thousand twenty-nine thousand -- three hundred
twenty-nine thousand full-time residents, with an estimated increase of
124,000 seasonal residents and guests that totalled 453,000 residents
that are relying on our EOC in the time of a disaster.
Now, this does not include some 7,000 additional citizens to
Page 176
May 24, 2005
occupy our county by October 1st of this year. The need for the
planned EOC is very, very evident to everyone.
As a former fire chief and city councilman, I can understand
decisions cannot be made to everyone's complete satisfaction;
however, the overall benefit to the majority of our citizens in this
county must be taken into consideration when reasonable measures
have been taken to address the concerns of all our residents.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Very well.
Do the commissioners have any questions of the public?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No? Then I'll close the public hearing.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would like to have someone from
staff come up and answer the question in regards to storm surge. Are
we in category three storm surge area? There was some -- seemed to
be some discrepancies in regards to what staff has given us and what
the public has given us.
MR. SUMMERS: Right. Sir, your storm surge category there is
at the three, four category line. The concern there that you have is that
the storm surge inundation maps that we've given you of those levels
are what is expected based on the computer modeling at the beach
line, at the shoreline.
What none of us are capable of doing in any emergency
management scenario is we can't estimate the number of impediments
to the storm surge level that are farther inland. But in addition to the
elevation that we've given you -- and yes, the site will be built up to
some degree. We have also put -- all the essential services have been
elevated. So the building will withstand the storm surge categories
that we have given to you. And, again, understanding the cost benefit
Page 1 77
... _.,--,-~-..,.-
May 24, 2005
and the risk associated.
We could build -- we could spend millions more and do
additional things, but would we go through a 100- or 200-year cycle
and not have to take advantage of that? That's a possibility.
We have put good value engineering into the elevation that we
have, into the location that we have based on good storm surge
models.
As you know, those models are always somewhat conservative;
however, that is the best planning tool that we have. And we think
what we have designed for you meets all of the criteria that I am very
comfortable with working in that building 24 hours a day during any
storm event.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My next question is, in regards to
the antenna wind load, being a monopole and not -- being
self-supportive.
MR. SUMMERS: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What criteria do we have as far as
engineering data available to us?
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir. That was a criteria. The engineers
have found a tower that will meet that wind load criteria that we have
established. Far newer technology, far newer design, and also, we
have minimized the profile on that antenna -- on that tower with
minimal antennas so that we're very confident. We wouldn't put them
on a pole antenna design there if we didn't think it couldn't (sic)
handle the scenario.
Also understand that by -- the fact that that building -- that that
tower, excuse me, is behind the building, provides some peak load
wind breaks for us as well.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In regards to wind loads, is this
gust winds or is this sustained wind loads that we're looking at? And
what is the wind loads on this particular antenna?
MR. SCHARF: Well, we're looking at 175 mile an hour winds
Page 178
_"_",,*._m"~'_ _,., "" _~.._".__.____~..-
May 24, 2005
sustained.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sustained, okay.
MR. SCHARF: The gusts will be higher, but the monopole also,
just for information, sits on a 10- foot diameter by 50 foot deep
caisson. So, you know, there is a lot of weight against any wind on
the monopole. The monopole will not break.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. A couple questions, please.
We had read at one time about the chain link -- it was somewhere in
back-up material, chain link fence and barbed wire. Has that been
taken out of this thing now?
MS. PRICE: Yes.
MR. SCHARF: Absolutely.
MS. PRICE: That has been taken out. We're looking for no
deviations or variations from code on our fence.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So what kind offence are
you going to put?
MS. PRICE: It's -- tell me again what it's called?
MR. SCHARF: It's a metal wrought iron or aluminum decorative
fence, and it's four feet high.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Let's see. The next thing. I
had heard someplace, this is just a rumor, that they were going to build
a Lowe's right there, next door or right in that commercial area. Is that
true?
MS. PRICE: That commercial area was originally designed and
approved to be a Lowe's. I understand from CDES that they have not
actually made any applications for it, and they may have taken that
out. Incidentally, that piece of property is zoned commercial and with
a maximum height of 60 feet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. The reason I'm asking that is
because I wanted to go into the interconnectivity issue, and I thought
Page 179
. -- ._"~..-..-.
May 24, 2005
if it was going to be something that the surrounding neighbors could
go to -- we've been encouraging interconnectivity all along, and I
notice they say that they didn't want interconnectivity here, and I
wanted to know if there's a way that interconnectivity can be managed
so that people can, you know, move in and around that area.
MS. PRICE: The interconnectivity that was discussed during the
planning commission was with the church a little bit further north of
Davis Road. We did -- we took a real close look at that and identified
a mechanism where we could connect that road down to -- down to
Santa Barbara; however, in doing so we would have to mitigate some
of the stormwater, and that would have to be on their property. They
decided that it would be in their best interest not to accept that
stormwater, and so they've withdrawn that.
Beyond that, in terms of interconnectivity, we would be sitting
somewhat next door to this commercial site, which will have access
onto Santa Barbara.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And this lady was saying she
was from Enclave and 350 units or something. If they needed
interconnectivity to this Lowe's or something, could that be possible
by a cooperative effort from us and the school and so forth?
MS. PRICE: It would also take a cooperative effort between the
property owner behind that commercial area, because they own that
property .
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see.
MS. PRICE: However, it was certainly something that we could
entertain with a big cooperative effort.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. The lady also -- this lady
from -- I'm sorry I didn't -- let's see. Nicole Gassaway, I think she said
her name was. She was wondering if they would shield the parking lot
lights so that they wouldn't be shining in the windows of those people
from Enclave.
MR. SCHARF: The Enclave is to the east of our property. The
Page 180
May 24, 2005
Enclave is basically -- there is the school as well as the drainage
retention pond area. Weare hundreds of feet from there. The
requirements for cut-off lighting are being followed in any respect, so
there will be no spill light from the property line of the building, even
onto the lake, so there will be no spill towards the residential area.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And we can be assured of
that, right?
MR. SCHARF: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The reason I ask that is, we have a
problem in another community where park lights are shining in their
lights (sic), and they're quite a distance away, a huge lake is in
between them, and still they get the lights from our park, so that's --
MS. PRICE: A different type of lighting. You're looking at
parking lot --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MS. PRICE: -- lighting, so it's considerably lower and shines
just down onto the parking lot.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay, good. I just wanted to
make sure these people were taken care of.
I think I had another question. What is the estimated cost of this
building?
MS. PRICE: About 40,000 -- excuse me -- $40 million, but that
includes all the equipment and technology that needs to go into it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Dh-huh. And -- well, that's -- I had
a little problem, because without the recommendations from the
CCPC coming back to us -- usually we rely heavily on what they have
to tell us. And now that this is a new thing, you know, I have more
questions, but I'll come back later.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. My question has to do
with the lake itself and the -- I guess the placement from the school.
MS. PRICE: We'll get somebody up who can answer it.
Page 181
May 24, 2005
MR. HOVELL: I'm sorry. I didn't hear the question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The lake that you have on the
property there, that separates you from what, the school at the other
side?
MR. HOVELL: Yes, sir, there's an existing--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They expressed some concern
over the lake, what was going to be -- to protect -- keep the students
from coming into the lake. What do you have there?
MR. HOVELL: Yes, sir. Well, there's an existing stormwater
retention pond that has a fence. And certainly as we expand it, we'll
extend the fence that goes along with it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that fence will be what
kind of fence?
MR. HOVELL: I believe it's a four-foot chain link fence.
MS. PRICE: Six-foot chain link fence.
MR. HOVELL: Six-foot chain link fence, I'm told.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And the lake itself, are
you planning to do the littoral planting around the lake to be able to
make it look like something that's presentable?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a part of the code, and I
haven't heard a deviation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, no, I know that, but the
question was asked and I wanted them to state it for the record.
MR. HOVELL: That piece is actually part of the transportation
proj ect, but I believe Commissioner Henning would be right, that they
would have to do that -- I don't think there's a transportation project
manager here that would know for sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if we go forward today,
you would expect this building to be completed in two years?
MS. PRICE: Within two and a half to three years.
MR. HOVELL: They would be open for the summer of 2008
hurricane season is what our estimate is.
Page 182
.-40' ..~~--- ,. -...~
~----~<.,.---......-
May 24, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we're still biting the bullet
for a number of years to come?
MR. HOVELL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Well, what do we have--
what have we spent so far? What point of design are we at now?
MR. HOVELL: We're at pretty close to 100 percent design,
pending the redesign that -- I don't know how well it was pointed out
during the presentation, but this building, as it was presented today, is
four feet lower than the original design, so we're going to have to go
back and do that minimal amount of redesign, if nothing else.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's not a major cost factor,
that four feet? What's involved with that? Is it going to add like six
months to it, put us into another hurricane season?
MR. HOVELL: No. When we say we're going to open for
summer of 2008, we're already assuming we'll be doing that redesign.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There was a question that was
brought up that surprised me, and I just want to get this on the record
and get it addressed. Is there going to be incinerator there?
MR. HOVELL: Not that anybody on our staff knows about.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Where did this come up from?
MR. SCHARF: I have no idea.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I just want to make sure that
MR. SCHARF: There is no incinerator on this property.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right. Okay. Now, can I --
MR. SCHARF: Excuse me. For clarification, there is a
generator, but not an incinerator.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. No, this was incinerator,
and I understand there's a generator there, but --
MR. SCHARF: No.
Page 183
May 24, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Normally if this would be
zoned for anything else in Collier County, the heights would be
roughly 75 feet or thereabouts for this type of a building, and we're at
72 feet, what, I believe, so we're below the minimum level that we can
build this at; is that correct?
MS. PRICE: The zoned height for building is 72 feet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But it's 90 with the stuff on the top.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, with the appurtenance on the
top of it, well, then we're talking basically about 90 feet.
MS. PRICE: Eighty-nine feet, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Eighty-nine, okay.
MR. SCHARF: May I just explain something? That appertinents
on top of the building is mechanical equipment that is over 50 feet
back from the facade of the building. It appears straight on, when you
look at a rendering, to be right there at the face of the building --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The front.
MR. SCHARF: -- but it's not. That is 50 feet back, that gray
area on the top of the building. What the building actually is from
ground level is what you see there where Peter is pointing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If our planning staff really truly
believes that an EMS is an accessory use to the school, then why do
they need approval for the other ones? Because the EOC is really, if
you think about it, lesser intense of a use than EMS. And EMS is
24/7. EOC is when it's needed, except for just business hours, just like
our office is.
So why don't we just determine that it is a permitted use by right
and not vote on it? Or if we don't believe that EMS is an accessory
use to the school, then I think we need to continue it and do it right.
MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, may I comment?
Page 184
. _.~~~~.~-----,..-
May 24, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray, zoning director. I guess there's
been a little bit of confusion on this EMS and accessory use to the
school, and I think the implication was that staff somehow came to
this conclusion based on a meeting that occurred some time ago.
The essential services facilities are listed as accessory uses in the
old Bembridge PUD, so it wasn't a determination that didn't have a
basis in the existing ordinance.
The question when you deal with essential service facilities is --
and the code gets extremely confusing when you start to read it
because essential service facilities encompass a very broad scope of
facilities. Anything from EOC, EMS facilities, fire training facilities,
firehouses, utility facilities, you name it. Even equipment storage and
maintenance facilities could be considered -- there could be a link
there.
Essential service facilities are those that serve, you know, the
needs for the public for essential services such as health, safety,
welfare, police protection, fire protection, that sort of thing, anywhere
up to cable and electricity and water lines.
So I think the confusion came about -- and I wasn't at the meeting
-- but from what I can decipher, is exactly what the PUD meant when
it said an accessory facility could be permitted in the district as far as
essential services was concerned.
And it was our understanding that it was primarily going to be an
office use, and it's my understanding that staff felt that that would be
compatible with the uses that were already permitted by right in the
district.
Again, I was not at the meeting, so I didn't have -- enter into the
discussion, but that was basically what I recall from the meeting. So I
just wanted to clarify that, because there seems to be some concern
that staff made this arbitrary decision.
And every decision we make is based on the facts that have to
Page 185
,. - ..-------,.-
May 24, 2005
deal with the subj ect property, and each property is different. So if
there appears to be inconsistency, there is, not from a negative
standpoint, it's just that each piece of property has to be considered on
its own merits so there are different facts for each set of properties that
you deal with. So I just wanted to make that clear.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I follow up on that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Leo, if you could put up the
legal size. That comes out of the Bembridge PUD in reference to
essential services. And if you see the header on it, it says what,
permitted?
MR. MUDD: Permitted -- permitted accessory uses and
structures.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Accessory uses.
MR. MUDD: Permitted accessory uses and structures.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you would -- help me out
here. You would tend to think that it would be an accessory use to the
permitted structures.
MS. MURRAY: There are a list of permitted uses, and the
determination was made when the PUD was originally adopted that
that would be the appropriate list of accessory uses to those permits
uses by right. Why? I can't tell you. I wasn't at the hearing. I didn't
make -- I didn't evaluate the petition. But that was what was listed and
approved on the list of accessory uses to the permitted uses in the
district.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So an EMS station is an
accessory use to the permitted use through essential services?
MS. MURRAY: Well, it's essential services. And what I'm
saying is, then we have to go back to the code, and there's a paragraph
of what essential services are.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have it right there. We have
it right there for you.
Page 186
. -_"._ .__,,___.Ù>. "._"---T-"
_. -~--..
May 24, 2005
MS. MURRAY: Sure, right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if we could zoom in on that.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's why I made the statement
is, why are we going through this exercise, because essential services,
you can just read that?
MS. MURRAY: Ma'am, sit back and you'll get your turn, okay.
I'm sorry, Commissioner. I'm trying to answer your question.
What was it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good, thank you, because I
really need some help on this one.
MS. MURRAY: Okay. I didn't hear your question. I'm being
interrupted.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we have a social services
definition within the land development code, which the county
attorney provided, and we see fire, police. Police is --
MS . MURRAY: Correct, what we try to do is --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- within that use of the EOC
building, but it also says something of the fact that -- similar services
necessary to promote protection, public health, safety, and welfare.
And I don't know what an EOC building is, except for that
statement right there, to promote, protect public, health, and safety.
That's why I made the statement is, if an EMS station is a permitted
use, so is the other one, because it's a -- really a lesser intensive use
than an EMS station. EMS and fire, you know, is 24 hour, lights and
SIrens.
MS. MURRAY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think Dan Summers has
lights and sirens on his vehicle. I don't think he works 24/7, or his
staff works 24/7 unless there's an emergency.
MS. MURRAY: And I think what the PUD amendment was
intended to do was to clarify. And, again, I think this really goes back
Page 187
- _.__'.'_'0____------.-.
May 24, 2005
to the list of essential services and the vagueness of the list of essential
servIces.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This list here?
MS. MURRAY: Well, and actually it's changed over the years,
so I'm not even sure that the list that was evaluated at the time is this
current list, because what we've tried to do over the years is actually
clarify that list, and we did a wholesale revision of each of the zoning
districts -- I don't know if you remember -- and -- because it was
several years ago -- where we actually tried to enumerate all the
essential services for each of the districts and clarify them by SIC
code number because they came so broad.
So I can't tell you at the time whether or not that was the
definition when that determination was made, but I can tell you staff
has historically had a lot of difficulty in applying that provision when
there's vague language either in the PUD that just specifically says
essential services.
And what we try to look at is the facts associated with the subject
site and the PUD itself, what was the intent of the PUD? What was it
intended to -- what kind of service was it intended to provide? What
kind of land uses was it intended to provide? What was determined in
terms of compatibility with the approved use, because that's the
analysis that one goes through when you do a rezoning in addition to
your growth management plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Murray, the -- I'm sure you
don't know -- Ms. Murray, I'm sure you don't know the Bembridge
PUD. You haven't seen it. Well, I'm sure you looked at it sometime
or another, but trying to prepare for this meeting, I'm trying to really
understand, because that was one of the concerns that the residents had
is, how can you approve an EMS -- or when did you approve it?
When did the board of commissioners approve it as a use? When did
the board of zoning appeals approve it?
MS. MURRAY: They didn't. And actually -- I mean, the -- what
Page 188
_._....~
"'<I' ..... _._,.--
May 24, 2005
the plan was, was to come through with the PUD amendment to
incorporate all of this in here as well as the needed deviations, because
I believe your height exceeds probably the existing height allowed in
the Bembridge PUD, and then there was some question of uses.
So knowing that was all coming forward and it would be before a
public hearing with the public input, that was -- became kind of a
non-issue, and it was addressed -- to be addressed during the PUD
process as far as clarifying exactly what was going to be in the PUD
and why.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But we're not being
asked for a zoning change for EMS station today?
MS. MURRAY: I'm not quite sure I understand.
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're not.
MR. MUDD: It's -- what happened -- I just got -- that was Vince
Cautero on the phone, and he apologized for not being here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Here's a letter that he
sent to our staff, but the only problem is, it says cancelled on it. Do
you want this?
MR. MUDD: No, sir, I haven't seen it. But what I just talked to
Vince on the phone -- when the EMS station came forward, they were
going for a conditional use type permit, and Ms. Student was in the--
was in the room, and it was decided at that meeting that the
emergency management station, okay, paramedics, the little station,
okay, was essential service, and it was a permitted use during the
PUD.
When the emergency services complex, the building we're
talking about today, was talked about, Ms. Student gave an opinion
that that would have to come through with a change to the PUD, and
that's what was just relayed to me on the phone by Mr. Cautero, who
was also a member during that meeting.
MS. MURRAY: And the EMS then became a principal use
Page 189
".~"n.._.__
May 24, 2005
instead of accessory and was clarified through this process, as Jim
Mudd said.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry. Say that again.
MS. MURRAY: And the EMS ceases to become accessory and
then becomes principal -- a principal use within the PUD instead of
accessory .
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But today we're determining as
accessory to the principal use.
MS. MURRAY: No, today you're considering a PUD
amendment to Bembridge PUD to allow it to be a permitted use, along
with the emergency operations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess what we consider what it
is today, not deciding today, but what we consider it today is an
accessory use to the existing uses.
MS. MURRAY: It's listed that way in the currently approved
Bembridge PUD, yes, as an accessory to the permitted use. Whether
we agree or not, it's listed in there, and we have to try to make a
determination as to how that fits within the code definition of essential
services at that time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you know --
MS. OLITSKY: Excuse me, Commissioners, I would ask
permission to be recognized by you to comment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the chair that needs to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who are you? Are you a member of the
public?
MS.OLITSKY: I am a member of the public. I spoke before. I
was the one that brought up the idea about the incinerators.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We closed--
MS.OLITSKY: It is in your documents in black and white, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I understand. We have closed the
Page 190
May 24, 2005
public hearing already, but your comment has been noted. If you'll
tell us the page where it is noted in the --
MS.OLITSKY: Page 11 of the Bembridge emergency services
complex -- community facilities planned unit development prepared
for Collier County Board of Commissioners by Coastal Engineering.
And I think something such as -- important as this, to be able to
have a minute more than three minutes, when staff is given an
unlimited amount of time is appropriate, and I ask for that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ma'am, you've had an hour and a half.
All of the residents have had an hour and a half to present --
MS.OLITSKY: Okay. Would you at least make note that the
incinerator is mentioned in the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MS.OLITSKY: -- documents as an accessory to this facility?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have read it into the record. It is
part of the record. Thank you very much.
MS. OLITSKY: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I --
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I need to have some clarification.
When this came before the planning commission, obviously
everybody realizes that this was denied overwhelmingly.
Can you tell me the three items that are no longer in here because
they have been addressed by staff so it's put on the record of the items
now that have -- are no longer on here, and then if you could just give
some detail on the items that are still here, the three deviations, so that
we have clarification? And then I have some other comments I'd like
to make after we get the answers to these.
MS. PRICE: There were initially eight deviations requested,
three remain, and let me tell you the ones that are no longer on the
table. They are -- wait just a moment and I'll get there.
There were four deviations requested on landscaping. One is still
Page 191
May 24, 2005
on the table. It's the rear landscaping buffer that we talked about.
The fence height. Weare no longer asking for a deviation for the
fence height.
The massing -- there was an issue about massing, that is the way
buildings, you know, go in and out like this so you don't have that big
box look. That was initially considered not to be meeting the code.
After a rereview, the zoning board determined that we do, in fact,
comply, and so that is no longer a deviation that was requested.
So what is left on the table at this time is the rear landscape
buffer, the amount of windows, and an additional sign for the school.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Height?
MS. PRICE: Height is not actually a deviation. That's
something that's part of the amended request, but that was not part of
the eight deviations.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
I just want to say that since I've been elected to the Board of
County Commissioners here in Collier, I take this job very, very
seriously, to the effect -- to the point where I've spent a number of
weeks up in Emmitsburg, Maryland, and -- studying and getting
familiarized with the type of emergencies that all of us can get
involved with here in Southwest Florida, in fact, all of Florida, in fact,
all of the southern states, and those are hurricanes.
I then got really involved into the aspect of what took place last
August 13th. And I believe that -- to me that was the most rude
awakening that I've ever had in my life, realizing that as a
commissioner, and all of us commissioners here, have the
responsibility of all the health and safety and welfare of the people
here in Collier County.
I also realized the intensity of these storms for the very first time.
Before that I lived up in the northern latitudes where we obviously
don't have the storms of this intensity.
And as we waited through those hours and then we found out that
Page 192
..-..~,-,-,--".,_."".,,~._,_._-
.."-_._~~
May 24, 2005
one of our neighboring counties to the north of us lost their EOC
center -- and I believe the gentleman was here today to explain those
concerns -- I can tell you that I believe that our EOC center that we
presently have is in harm's way, all the people that work there. We're
so close to the coast here, and it's located in this building in the very
first floor.
And also, the amount of people that it takes to run an EOC
center, and I'm amazed at the efficiency that we can get out of this
operations. This operation here really was designed for about 75,000
people in the county, and now we're well over 300,000 people and
we're growing at a rapid rate.
I really believe we need this -- we need this center. And, you
know, there's been people here that said, you need to go out and look
for alternate opportunities. I just don't think they're out there, and if
they are, we may have to buy the land, we may be in a situation where
it will be another two or three, maybe four years, maybe five years
before we can get to where we are today.
And I really think this is very, very essential for everybody here
in Collier County. I understand the concerns of all the residents here,
and I can tell you that I've got high-rises in my neck of the woods that
weren't there when I first moved in, but they're a lot higher than what
is here. These are only four stories, and this is something that's for
your health and your safety and your welfare, and I really think that
we need to move forward on this.
So I'd like to make a motion for approval on this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion for approval by
Commissioner Halas, a second by Commissioner Coletta.
Commissioner Fiala has a question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I had -- I wanted to say on the
record, first of all, that I would feel a lot more comfortable if this had
Page 193
___-,.,--"".-~~..-'''M."''''-
May 24, 2005
gone back to the planning commission, because I would have loved to
have seen them take a look at this again. I don't want to hold the thing
up, but I felt it would look good. Maybe you could continue on your
way knowing what size of the building and at least modify.
You were talking about locations, and I thought, you know,
across from the new hospital maybe might be a place. There's a--
there's a big area there that's zoned commercial, or there's -- you
know, over by the landfill where we already own the land, and you've
got all the space, and you can put the towers as high as you want, and
really you can build the building as high as you want as long as there's
the money to do it.
So I'm just -- I'm just throwing that on the table just -- because I
would have had a much greater comfort level had the planning
commission been able to take a look at this again.
And I just wanted to tell you, kind of like a little humorous thing,
with the Glades, you know, when you were saying how the water had
been over the rooftops from hurricane Donna in the 1960's? The
Glades wasn't built till '74, so --
MS. PRICE: Apparently I was given some bad anecdotal
information; however, we here are in a high hazard zone storm surge
Wise.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And is it over there? You know, if
we need it out of harm's way, if we need it in a higher area, this Dom
Fester said that it was 9.5 over there, rather than the 16. Are we
building the building up to -- I mean, are we building the ground up to
16 feet before we start measuring up? I don't know.
MS. PRICE: We're building the ground up, and additionally the
first floor of this building is going to be storage and underground
parking, so that the actual operations will be up even higher than that,
as much as 22 feet from that 18- foot ground level.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you're going to build the ground
up first and then you're going to build the parking area? Because you
Page 194
_..M____~
May 24, 2005
were saying something about busing people in because this area wasn't
as high as it should be.
MS. PRICE: The parking area will not be built up quite as high.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just a minute, hold on, hold on. Just a
minute.
Ladies and gentlemen of the audience, you've had your time to
talk. Please do not start interj ecting comments into the testimony
we're trying to listen to. All right?
Continue.
MS. PRICE: The parking lot will not be raised to the degree of
the building, but the building will be raised to that 18- foot elevation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just to clarify.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So we're going to build the ground
up to 18 feet and then start the building, so -- is that what I'm hearing
you say?
MR. SCHARF: Santa Barbara --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. SCHARF: -- is at elevation 14 approximately. The existing
ground level on the site is about 10. It's below, yes, but we are going
to fill up, so that the building we're going to raise some -- well, the
parking is going to be raised, and the building is going to be raised to
the ground floor of about 17 and a half elevation. The first floor, the
occupied floor of the building, is actually at 35, well above a storm--
category four storm, well above the five.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All of that equipment will be out of
the way as well?
MR. SCHARF: Yes, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now I get to ask some questions.
While we're talking about height, what is the absolute height
above the elevation of Santa Barbara Boulevard?
MS. PRICE: I'm not sure I understand your question.
Page 195
May 24, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was just stated 14.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
MR. HOVELL: I think what your question is, is that the building
height from ground level is approximately 90 feet. How much higher
-- or how much lower is Santa Barbara than the ground? It's an extra
four feet.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no.
MR. HOVELL: So it's about 90 feet.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have always talked about truth in
advertising --
MR. HOVELL: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- when it comes to building heights.
MR. HOVELL: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The building height --let's take existing
grade. From existing grade, what is the building height?
MR. HOVELL: If the existing grade is 10 and we're going to fill
it to 18, then you have to add eight to the 90 feet we added -- talked
about before, so it's 98 from existing grade.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ninety-eight feet is the -- is the el-- is
the top of the building from existing grade?
MR. HOVELL: From existing grade today, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that's the top of the equipment--
MR. HOVELL: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- enclosure on top of the building, is 98
feet. Okay.
Now let's go to the square footage of this building. What is it
now?
MR. SCHARF: The gross square footage is about 120,000;
however, the net usable square footage, because a lot of that is
mechanical, electrical, corridors, et cetera, is approximately 87,000
square feet.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you're including corridors in the --
Page 196
May 24, 2005
MR. SCHARF: In the 120,000, we have, as a matter of fact,
some two story-spaces within the building that add to square footage,
but obviously unoccupied because they're two floors high.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But you said corridors are not
included in net usage?
MR. SCHARF: In the 87-, 88,000 square feet, that excludes
corridors and non-usable areas.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, earlier when we were discussing
how much square footage was being used by what agency, you gave
us some figures, and I added them up, and it turned out to be about
30,000 square feet.
MR. SCHARF: Well, I didn't have all of the spaces included at
that time. Perhaps--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How about --
MR. SCHARF: Perhaps this would help.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
MR. SCHARF: Okay. This is -- this is a chart that we had
prepared some time ago of the different departmental uses. I can't
frankly read it from here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I can read it.
MR. MUDD: The building is 21,000 in yellow; vacant is about
1,000; sheriffs around 15; EMS is around 10,000; EOC is at 11; EMD
is at 2,004; communications, customer relations, and that's that video
issue, that's 3,277; joint use is 1,766; traffic operations is no longer in
the building. They moved to the Arthur X building, so that -- this is
an old chart. But you were looking for square feet, so I was -- I was
trying to find it for you. Volume space is 11,459.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What does that mean?
MR. SCHARF: Volume space is the two-story space.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
IT. What does circulation mean?
MR. SCHARF: That's corridors.
Page 197
May 24, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And what is building?
MR. SCHARF: Building is rest room facilities, mechanical,
electrical spaces.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's 21,000 square--
MR. SCHARF: Entranceway, lobbies. There's a lot of computer
space in the building that is unassigned.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the sheriffs office of 15,000 square
feet is going to be used only for dispatching vehicles or what?
MR. MUDD: That's the sheriffs substation--
MR. SCHARF: That's the 911 and the sheriffs substation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's the only 911 facility in the county, or
is it merely a one-call facility?
MR. BEATTY: For the record, my name's Al Beatty. I'm the
communications captain for the sheriffs office.
No. There are two primary public safety answering points within
Collier County. We are the largest by far. The second PSAP, or
public safety answering point, is in the City of Naples, and they
dispatch for the city police and fire services for the city. Twelve
square miles as opposed to the other 2,000 square miles that we
dispatch for.
Weare responsible for dispatching the sheriffs office, Marco
Island Police Department, the remaining eight or nine fire agencies
and EMS for the entire community.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And how many employees would you
expect to have there?
MR. BEATTY: I have approximately 90.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, at this location?
MR. BEATTY: That's right, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: In this building?
MR. BEATTY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ninety employees?
MR. BEATTY: Ninety. Not at one time. I'm not going to have
Page 198
May 24, 2005
90 people on duty at one time, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many at one time?
MR. BEATTY: Approximately 20.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I ask question? This 911
facility is basically going to be the EOC 911 facilities when
everything fails; is that correct?
MR. BEATTY : Well, the EOC will have a separate facility.
We'll be on the same floor. We'll be -- we'll be in constant contact
with each other, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But what I'm getting at is this is
going to be the main --
MR. BEATTY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- 911 center --
MR. BEATTY: Yes, sir, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- in case of an emergency?
MR. BEATTY: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any other questions by
commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion on the floor. I believe
it was made by Commissioner Halas and seconded by Commissioner
Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, by like sign.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So it fails 3-2, with
Commissioner Halas and Commissioner Coletta being in the minority.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I make a suggestion?
Page 199
May 24, 2005
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is -- we reconsider, asking to
continue? I feel that if we have all the conditional uses within the
Bembridge and spread out the height between EMS and the proposed
building, I think you would lose your obj ection.
It's -- the use ofEOC, again, is not any -- is lesser intense than
police cars -- the lieutenant is agreeing with me -- EMS, screaming
ambulance, and I heard from -- no obj ection to a screaming
ambulance. They want an EMS station there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I don't think we can -- we can do
anything else at this point in time except, perhaps, one member of the
majority asking that it be brought back for reconsideration.
Is that right, David? We have, in fact, disapproved this -- this
project.
MR. WEIGEL: In fact, you have. It failed.
A member of the majority may bring this back; however, since
this is a quasijudicial decision, it's kind of interesting. The county is
the petitioner. Usually the county is not the petitioner.
But the rule provides for the petitioner to make a request to the
county manager to be made to the board. So, in essence, you'd be
doing it to yourself to bring it back, but it would not be brought back
at this very meeting. It would come back at a later time, properly
advertised, as I've advised you before on these kind of matters.
So it could come back through the reconsideration process if a
member of the majority voting did -- took the measure with the county
manager to do so.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas has a
question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to say that as this
county grows out, there is going to be more and more hard decisions
and there's going to be times when somebody's ox is going to be
gored.
Page 200
._......,..-_._-~
May 24, 2005
And I really believe, Commissioners, that we have a
responsibility in regards to the health, safety, and welfare of this
community. When I say community, I'm talking about Collier
County .
We can't let something like this escape. God help us if we should
run into a situation, as I said earlier, as our neighbors to the north did.
We know that our EOC center here is inadequate. We know that we
are in harm's way, and we have to do the right thing. It's time to step
up to the plate and do it right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala and Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree. I mean, nobody has any
problems. We all know we need an EOC center. We all know that
nobody's complained about the size or the -- or the largeness of it or
even the price of it.
I know that I would feel comfortable if we brought it back and it
first went through the CCPC. That's been something important to me
all along. I'd like them to take a good look at it, and I would feel more
comfortable with it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: David, we're still on this topic.
Why can't we give direction at this time?
And I further want to say, for somebody that took a property
right from 100 foot to 75 foot in his district because of residents'
pressure -- but the reason I really voted no for this is because of the
lawsuits that I feel that is going to come forward because of the
interpretation of essential services. That's why I voted no for it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had problems with some of the
information that was given to us that seemed to be tested.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's get -- Commissioner Henning
clearly wants to see this brought back.
David, why don't you provide us some guidance as to how that
can be done.
Page 201
May 24, 2005
MR. WEIGEL: Right now, I'm happy to.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Working directly from the
reconsideration ordinance. The petitioner -- and, again, in this case it's
the county. The petitioner should request reconsideration of a petition
in writing to the county administrator, meaning county manager,
within 15 days of the date of the board's action denying the original
petition.
This request shall be jurisdictional and no motion for
reconsideration may be made by any member of the board where such
a request was untimely except as provided in this section.
It goes on to say the motion for reconsideration. Now, once a
request by petitioner -- in this case it is the county, and the staff has
been acting on behalf of the board as petitioner -- so I think that with
your direction today, staff could prepare the request to go to the
county manager so there's something on record.
And once that is done, it then goes on to say, any member of the
board who voted with the majority or in the case of a rezoning, which
this is, voted against on the original petition, may move for a
reconsideration of the petition at any regular meeting of the board
within 15 days from the date of the request for reconsideration. That's
15 days of the date of the reconsideration request filed by staff at your
behest.
Additionally, as Jim has mentioned, Jim Mudd has mentioned,
the next meeting June 14th, 21 days away, I have opined in the past in
that application of the reconsideration ordinance, that where there may
be delays beyond the days stated in this ordinance, based upon the
regular schedule of the board, even summer schedule, that this does
not permit the board from achieving its operational desire through the
reconsideration ordinance. That probably will not be a problem here,
although conceivably, with advertisement, it would be a couple
meetings away, probably late June or the July meeting when this
Page 202
May 24, 2005
would come up again.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So are you saying that if
Commissioner Henning wants to have this reconsidered, he can make
that motion right now?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it's all really -- I mean, the technical aspect
of this is the staff represents you. The staff has been the petitioner
coming before you, you are the petitioner, so you can, in effect,
indicate, even at this meeting, yes, as petitioner, you wish to have this
reconsidered, and as a follow-up, create a little memorandum or memo
to the county manager so he'll have it.
And at that point, then a motion for reconsideration shall be made
within 15 days of this particular request for reconsideration at any
regular meeting. I think the ordinance takes into account on these
quasijudicial matters for another meeting later, not this meeting here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So Commissioner Henning can
make a motion that it be brought back next meeting, as I understand it.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, we've got advertising requirements for
these things.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Does that mean no or yes?
MR. WEIGEL: Oh, well --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I mean --
MR. WEIGEL: I'm having to think on the fly here. We haven't
left this item yet, so, in essence, I think because we're still hearing the
item you can indicate the meeting that you -- indicate at the next
meeting, June 14th, that the matter will be reconsidered and we will
not have to physically readvertise in the newspaper because we are
still in the meeting on this item right now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. When does -- when does
Commissioner Henning make his motion, today or the 14th?
MR. WEIGEL: It says --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
MR. WEIGEL: -- in no event such reconsideration shall take
Page 203
May 24, 2005
place less than 14 days nor more than 30 days. That's the actual
reconsideration itself when the motion is made so -- I think --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, let me try it this way, okay, to
make sure we do it by the letter of the law. Ms. Len -- Ms. Len Price
represent -- represented staff, represented the petition to the board,
Ms. Price will write me a letter, no doubt, and ask that this item be
reconsidered. I will -- I will query by memo the three members that
voted in the majority on this particular item to ask them if they would
like to reconsider this item at the next meeting.
Now, when you vote -- when you say you want to reconsider, it
comes to the next board meeting, which is the 14th of June -- and
David's opined that when we have a three-week period of time, that
the intent was that that would fit into the 14 days or 15 days -- the
board votes at that meeting if they want to reconsider the particular
item.
Once -- if the board says yes as a group that they want to
reconsider the item, then it comes back in the prerequisite number of
days in order for the board to hear it again properly advertised because
it's a zoning issue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we've finished with this
item for the day. All right?
What's next? Thank you very much. Yes, we're going to take a
break, 10- minute break.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike. Sir--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a time certain, don't we?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We have a four o'clock time certain. It is
now 4:39.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's good that we're on time.
Item #9A
Page 204
May 24, 2005
DISCUSSION REGARDING EARLY DEPARTURE FROM FILL
PITS ON IMMOKALEE ROAD - COUNTY MANAGER TO
MONITOR AND EV ALUA TE TRAFFIC CONCERNS AND
WORK WITH PIT OPERATORS AND DRIVERS, AND REPORT
TO THE BOARD WITH FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS
MR. MUDD: And it is item 9A. This item to be heard at four
p.m., discussion regarding early departure from fill pits on Immokalee
Road, and this item was asked for by Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, Coletta.
MR. MUDD: I did say Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did you say Coletta? I thought you said
Coyle.
Okay. It's all up to you now, Jim.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir. I appreciate
that.
Well, the reason I asked for this for reconsideration, as you may
recall, we had this come before us a little bit -- time ago, about a little
over a year ago. And at that point in time we didn't have quite the
crisis situation that we have today.
I've been sharing with you on some rare occasions some of the
e-mails and phone calls I've been receiving, but I didn't want to burden
you with a whole bunch of them --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- because I mean, it might
overwhelm you, because it has overwhelmed me. I mean, the public
that lives in the Immokalee corridor, especially those that come off of
Oil Well and Randall, have been suffering greatly during the
construction of Immokalee Road.
Thank God there's a light at the tunnel (sic). The problem is, the
light of the tunnel is almost two years away before we get that road
Page 205
"--~-------,--
May 24, 2005
completed all the way to 951.
I'm going to pass this on down through you. I don't expect you to
read it, but that's the different e-mails, letters, phone calls that I
received from different constituents out there with great concern.
One of the things that I learned, that if you receive a phone call
during the travel time and they want you to return it, wait till they get
home, have a chance to cool down, because the response that you're
going to get is quite overwhelming, and usually the first response you
get when you reach them at home that evening, it's a good thing you
didn't call me when I was on the way in. It's a terrible situation.
The drive time has been extended from last year to this year by
45 minutes, in some cases over an hour. Just to move a couple of
miles is a chore that's second to none. It's been observed by many,
including our sheriffs department. And in, fact, is was Scott Namish
(phonetic) that sent me a letter that started this whole process going
forward, and I asked for this to come back.
As you are well aware, the way our pit ordinance is set up, the
county manager has it within his discretion to be able to change hours
as he sees fit. Of course, because of the controversy that ensued at the
last time we brought this forward, I would never even ask him to
consider this without this commission so directing him.
What I'm looking for is one hour, not two hours, one hour. Six
o'clock for the opening of the pits. Now, mind you, it doesn't mean
that the trucks are going to not be on the road any earlier. They're not
prohibited from traveling the highways and the byways anytime they
want. There's no statute that can stop them from doing that.
The only thing this does is limit that conga line that comes out of
the pit at seven o'clock to an earlier hour. Is this the final solution? Is
this going to make the difference in people's lives that's going to make
it totally acceptable? No, but it will make a difference.
We do have some measures that are coming into play that are
going to make a big difference, and one of them is just one that
Page 206
._-,.,-_._'-'-~
May 24, 2005
naturally occurs every year about that time, and that's school closes.
School buses win be in retirement for a short time, about two months.
After that -- and I'm going to have Mr. Feders (sic) elaborate on
this in a few minutes -- we're going to have three lanes of the highway
open in such a way that it will able to -- in August, September, that
will be able to accommodate more traffic.
In the meantime we have a situation that I'm looking for some
temporary relief on. And what I would like to do is see this
commission direct Jim Mudd, at his own discretion, to be able to place
the time as he sees fit. Hopefully it will be one hour as a trial.
If it makes no difference or if it's a negative impact, he could
rescind it in a moment's notice, or he could address it a half an hour
one way or the other.
And with that, I'd like to call Mr. Feder forward, if I may. And
Norm, I know I didn't cover this with all the gusto that you're going to,
but if you would, please, sir.
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, transportation
administrator.
Commissioner, I think you did cover a big part of it. Obviously,
we've got three different variables out there right now, or actually
four. You've got an awful lot of traffic on a two-lane road, you've got
construction going on, you've got a lot of truck traffic and a lot of
school traffic.
The school traffic, fortunately, in about a week, win give us some
relief. We're going to look at how much relief that provides.
As you pointed out, in about August, September, we will have
three lanes open basically from Oil Well to west of Wilson. Our
intent, although we'll have to put some added pavement in there that
we'll have to take out of the future median, is to do that with turn
lanes. We found out what happened when we didn't have turn lanes.
We moved some of the traffic over, and that's some of the calls you
got. And the contractor won't do that again.
Page 207
~,.--.-"~.--.,-..
May 24, 2005
But essentially, as we open up that section, we're going to
establish a curb lane, trucks only on two lanes westbound, so that will
help in the morning. You'll have one eastbound, two westbound, with
the curb lane being trucks only.
March of next year we'll have all six lanes done between Oil
Well and west of Wilson, and then, of course, continuing the project.
But the most severe area is in the Oil Well, Randall, Wilson area, and
so there is relief coming.
We acknowledge all four of those variables as a concern in trying
to address all of them. As I said, we expect the school situation with
the middle school and, in particular, the new high school right there
off Oil Well near Immokalee to provide us quite a bit of relief in
another week.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We understand we've got a
problem. What is the recommendation solution, and let's see if we
can't get a motion and start proceeding with the solution?
I'm sorry. We do have people who have questions.
Commissioner Fiala first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I was going to say, I'm all for
this. I just wanted to make sure that the people, when they went out to
their jobs and came back, that they didn't start back out again at seven
o'clock. Could we limit that so that if they left at six, but then they
didn't leave again till eight, if they got back to the pits.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I can offer you something on
that. The idea is to get them out there, and the return trip going back
is going against the heavy flow of traffic.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's going to take them a good
hour just to get to their destination. The ones that are close in and get
to some jobs in the Estates, which are quite limited now, may be able
to turn around and go back, but I don't see them --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, like Heritage Bay area?
Page 208
May 24, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I don't see them catching
the seven o'clock in time. And this doesn't even guarantee us that
some of the truckers may prefer to leave at seven o'clock, who knows?
But at least if we can get a number of them out the door and their
travel time is started -- now, mind you, our ordinances require you
cannot start construction in some places in this county until seven
o'clock. If they leave at six, there's no way they're going to get there
at seven in the coastal regions, not the way that it is today, and even if
they did, they can wait that extra 10 minutes until that point.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, Commissioner, I think you
know your district much better than I do, and if that's what you feel is
a good time and this is a good recommendation, I'm solidly behind
you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the recommendation is for
them to leave at what time again?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Six o'clock.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Six o'clock. So they load up
and reach their destination, you know --
MR. MUDD: Cycle time --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Half an hour?
MR. MUDD: Cycle time is an hour and a half, is what we talked
to the pits out there in Immokalee Road. So they'll get there -- they'll
get there at 6:45, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Six forty-five to their
destination, so we are starting the construction time earlier?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If they dump at 6:45 when the
ordinance says seven is start time on construction?
MR. MUDD: Six thirty, sir, says the ordinance. I'm going to
bring Stan up, because he's got that down.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So there won't be any effect on
Page 209
"..._...._...._'" -4....II~ ~ .~_....-._... _.,_...~
--'--'-
May 24, 2005
-- we're not changing the construction hours?
MR. CHRYZANOWSKI: No, sir. Stan Chryzanowski, from
engineering review. The ordinance is the noise control ordinance, it's
part of the land development code, and it has always said 6:30 to
seven o'clock for construction sites, so we're not going to violate that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's -- it's different for the City of
Naples though, Stan.
MR. CHRYZANOWSKI: Okay. I don't know that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. It's not that early in the City of
Naples. But, you know, what's the difference? If they go there and
they have to wait for 15 minutes before they can offload, that's what
you have to do.
MR. CHRYZANOWSKI: I have a hard enough time knowing
all my own ordinances. And you're probably 15 minutes farther down
the road, so you're right. If they have to wait a while to unload, no big
deal.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not done yet.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But the real solution is -- well,
the temporary solution is school is going to be ending the end of this
week, so you're not going to have school buses to stop and go, stop
and go, or take -- your parents taking their kids to school getting into
the mix of the workforce going to the west.
And the long-term solution is -- or the temporary long-term term
is the three-laning opening, which is going to be in August. So what
are we really accomplishing here?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas was next.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I just wanted to answer
Commissioner Henning's--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead and answer the
Page 210
May 24, 2005
question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
Yeah, what you're accomplishing, Commissioner Henning, is
you're giving the power to Jim Mudd to be able to be fluid with the
situation. If the situation resolves itself with the school buses when
they cease operating and the traffic's flowing without any problems,
Jim Mudd would have it in his discretion to be able to change the
times to whatever is most suitable.
But we don't know for a fact that that's going to be the answer. I
just want to be able to give Jim Mudd the capability to be able to react
to the situation rather than us say that it will start at six o'clock and
will remain at six o'clock for 274 days, and we'll deal with it at that
time.
He has that power by the way the ordinance is set up to do it, and
I just wanted to recognize that power and have this commission give
him the nod to be able to do as he thinks is best and be able to deal
with the situation on a daily basis.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have concerns with that. We
have problems now. How are we going to get this information out to
the people that own trucks, because they're going to -- if we decide
that we want to rescind this and go back to the original starting time,
you're going to have 100 operators coming back and saying, well, I
wasn't notified personally about this.
MR. MUDD: You do it at the pit, sir. You do the notification at
the pit.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: It's the pit that opens up earlier -- or opens up an
hour later, depending on what that thing is. So the notification is not
necessarily to the truck drivers, it's to the pit.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And if I'm going -- if I was going to change it, I
Page 211
May 24, 2005
would do it with some notice that says, two weeks from now, and I put
a date down there, the hours will go back to where they were, you
know, from seven to -- seven to five, or whatever they were at the
particular time. Or if it was going to be an hour earlier because the
situation dictated because of construction or whatever, I basically say,
in two weeks, date such and such, this pit will open up an hour earlier.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. My other question is, if --
when are we going to institute this ordinance? Is it going to be
instituted --
MR. MUDD: The ordinance -- Commissioner, the ordinance is
in effect. The board took action --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I'm talking about the start time.
When are we going to --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- initiate the start time?
MR. MUDD: The ordinance is in effect. The county manager
has the authority to set the start times for the pits. This item went
before the board here about a year ago, and the board made a decision
that they didn't want to change the hours.
When that happened, the county manager doesn't have discretion
with pit hours anymore. You told me you don't want to change the
hours. So Commissioner Coletta's asking the question, does the board
want to give the county manager the authority to alternate the pit
hours based on traffic congestion or whatever the county has
according to the ordinance that's in effect right now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess what I'm trying to say here
is, are we going to institute the start time after the -- we find out what
happens when the school closes, or are we going to institute the new
start time ASAP?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if you give me the authority to
adjust the start time, what I'm going to do is, the last day of school I'll
have staff go out there and take a look at the intersection and take a
Page 212
May 24, 2005
look at the traffic and see what congestion is there, okay, and I'll have
them do it for about three days in a row.
In three days, if they say, boss, we've still got problems,
congestion, and a lot of it's still because of dump trucks, at that
particular juncture, I would change the hours to make it an hour
earlier. But I wouldn't do it until I take a look at the school situation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. That's the smart thing to do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So once we get that start of
the equation figured out, now on the other side, when are we going to
rescind this ordinance to get back to where we are? Are we going to
do this after we get the six lanes from Orange Tree to Wilson opened
up, or are we going to rescind this ordinance from the -- after the time
we complete Immokalee Road six-laning, completely?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could I make a suggestion? Why don't
we just remove the restriction from the county manager and let the
ordinance stay the way it is, just remove the restriction, permit him to
make changes in the start times at the pits in order to relieve any
traffic congestion, and then let him -- let him proceed? And that gives
him the flexibility to monitor it, check to see if it really is mostly
school traffic that's causing the problem.
He'll know that within a week or so, and then he can take the
necessary action, and then that way if there is any -- any problems
with the traffic, we can just tell the people to call the county manager
rather than calling us.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So does that -- does that seem to meet
your requirements, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, to be honest with you, I'd
almost like to have it happen to the pit immediately, but I mean, I
realize that there's going to be some compromises here.
The problem out there is a daily one. I mean, every day I have
Page 213
.~-~,-~~-~-'"-'-,.,--~..._-"..''"_.,-_._-~
May 24, 2005
people calling me up, and they say, well, it was 45 minutes today
getting from two miles down Randall to -- over to Immokalee Road,
and then another 30 minutes getting to Wilson, you know, and I get
those reports on a daily basis.
I wish we got this here sooner and we could have brought some
more relief, but we're here now with it. I would almost like to see it
instituted immediately. But, you know, I just want to see something
done.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I understand.
I think there's some benefit to finding out if the school recess
really solves most of the problem.
MR. MUDD: Sir, because then when you come back in the fall,
you start an advertising campaign that says, I know you might want to
drive your kids to school and you -- but it would be -- it might be good
if you let them take the school bus that's already going by the house
and alleviate some of that congestion for the next year or so until the
road gets built to six lanes. That might be something that at least we
could offer as far as information is concerned.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It would help us understand what's
causing the problem.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner, I just --
Commissioner Coletta, I just want to remind you, you had an e-mail in
here about going hunting, and you didn't respond to it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I couldn't get there because
the road was too crowded on Immokalee Road, that's the reason.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What happens with the Golden
Gate Estates residents when they catch up with the dump truck in the
urban area and now it becomes a problem in the urban area?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Pass them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we giving direction to the
Page 214
May 24, 2005
county manager if it becomes a problem in Collier County just to fix
it, or is it just for the residents in Golden Gate Estates?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. You're giving him blanket
discretion to be able to weigh the well-being of the whole county. I
knew it would be very difficult to get it instated as six o'clock. But I
thought if we could just live with the ordinance that exists now, the
county manager will have to weigh all the things that happen.
The truth of the matter is, we don't know what the final outcome
of this is going to be. I wished we did. It'd make it a lot easier. We
don't know if all of a sudden you're going to have a big problem in
Golden Gate or even in Naples. I doubt seriously you will because of
the travel time.
But what I'd like to do is see this instituted, and then we can take
it up with the county manager as we go along, work in motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Maybe what we ought to do is give
the county manager, also put a badge on his chest there and he could
be the sheriff, too.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We could try it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have a motion to get this thing
resolved?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Make a motion--
MS. FILSON: We have five speakers, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have five speakers. Tell me
something, who are the five speakers?
MS. FILSON: John DePrisco.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do any of the five speakers object to
having the county manager adjust the departure times of the -- at the
pits if it's necessary to reduce congestion?
MS. FILSON: Lauren Melo.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do any of you have an objection to that?
MS. FILSON: Bin McDaniel.
Page 215
May 24, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ifwe were to make a motion to that
effect, would it be necessary that you all speak for that purpose?
MS. FILSON: Mark Teaters.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can't speak from back there. We've
got to get you on the record.
MS. FILSON: Sam Adams.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But are you okay with that motion?
MR. McDANIEL: Kind of.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: See, we try, but we're never
going to satisfy all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You got 10 seconds.
MS. FILSON: For the record, this is Bill McDaniel.
MR. McDANIEL: For the record, this is Bill McDaniel.
Commissioners, thank you very much, and thank you for setting this
up for a time certain for us as well.
The points of clarification that I'd like to make while I've been
listening to the discussion, we're here today to offer some
accountability to you.
This thought process has been brought to you in the past, and
your concerns were constituents calling you with dump trucks arriving
too early to sites that they potentially could dump at.
There are representatives here from a new organization that's
recently been formed, the Southwest Florida Truckers' Association, in
concert with them, in concert with the mines -- and there's only three
mines that we're talking about, the two that we currently operate, and
Jones Mining on 846. Those are the three that we're talking about.
Not countywide.
We're going to provide some accountability for you. Working in
concert with staff, code enforcement. When the complaints come in,
those complaints are going to be addressed by our industry, through
the Southwest Florida Truckers' Association, ultimately back to and
Page 216
May 24, 2005
through the mines, because we have record as to where the trucks are
all going, what time they're leaving our operations, so on and so forth.
The other thought process that I wanted to add in, several years
ago we talked about those peak hours of seven and five (sic) in the
morning. We're talking about a total of 200 trips that we're going to
move off of those peak hours, and it's not just the start times, but it's
the stop times.
We're currently from seven in the morning till five in the evening
six days a week. We're talking six in the morning till four in the
afternoon six days a week. So we're going to take them off the road
theoretically an hour -- an hour earlier, and the theoretically, is based
upon Commissioner Coletta's earlier statement that they're allowed to
go wherever they want, whenever they want.
And a lot of times they're coming into our community from
without, from southern Lee County where their hours of operation are
24 hours a day, seven days a week.
I'm not taking any more time. I just wanted you folks to know
that there's more to this than Commissioner Coletta -- I mean, we're
working in concert with staff.
There's an organization here to deal with the complainants on a
personal basis. I'm willing to come back 90 days from today and give
you a report. Here's a list of what's transpired. Here's a list of who's
been complaining, what they've been complaining about, how those
complaints have been addressed, what we've done for corrective
action both in concert with code enforcement and the sheriffs
department.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's wonderful. That's really great.
And I've got Commissioner Halas, and then Commissioner
Henning, but --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're okay?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
Page 217
. ..-.-------
May 24, 2005
MR. McDANIELS: Questions for me or --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I just want -- I just want to clarify, if we
have six speakers up here, we're going to spend another half hour
dealing with this.
MR. McDANIELS: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there anyone who wants to object to
giving the county manager authority to work with the pit operators and
trucking association to adjust hours if it is necessary?
MR. McDANIELS: To my knowledge, no.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who's the president of the
association?
MR. McDANIELS: Of what association, sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Truckers'?
MR. McDANIELS: The Southwest Florida Trucker's --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Never mind.
MR. McDANIELS: No, the -- the Southwest Florida Truckers'
Association?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MR. McDANIELS: I don't know that they have one, but it's
Theresa Yahl.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh.
MR. McDANIELS: Of Dixy Trucking, and on their board is
Lauren Melo and Rebecca with Advantage Trucking. There's three
large trucking companies that are part of that organization, and it will
be in concert with our operations. And I've spoken to Jay over at
Jones Mining. We're all going to work together to help this be as
plausible as possible.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, thank you very much. I think that's
an excellent plan.
MR. McDANIELS: Any other questions?
Page 218
May 24, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I just want to make sure the people who
registered to speak --
MS. FILSON: Let me call their names and they can waive.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Will you -- do you want to waive
and let us get on with making this decision?
MS. FILSON: John DePrisco?
MR. DePRISCO: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Lauren Melo?
MS. MELO: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Mark Teeters?
MR. TEETERS: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Sam Addams?
MR. ADDAMS: Waive.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, do we have a motion on the floor?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I'd like to make the motion
that we remove any restrictions from Jim Mudd and allow him to
exercise the ordinance as far as the time for pits to start as he sees fit
according to whatever situations prevail.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion by Commissioner
Coletta, a 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.
Page 219
May 24, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It carries unanimously. Thank you very
much for coming in. Sorry we were late getting started.
(Applause.)
Item #7A
RESOLUTION 2005-213: MARILYN L. ROSS, TRUSTEE OF THE
MARILYN L. ROSS TRUST, REPRESENTED BY R. BRUCE
ANDERSON AND DOUGLAS A. LEWIS OF ROETZEL &
ANDRESS, IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR A 10-FOOT
ENCROACHMENT INTO THE 20-FOOT REQUIRED REAR
SETBACK FOR A SWIMMING POOL AND SCREEN
ENCLOSURE LEAVING A 10-FOOT REAR YARD ON A
WATERFRONT LOT, AS SET FORTH IN LDC SECTION 4.02.03.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 221 W. 3RD
STREET, IN THE LITTLE HICKORY SHORES SUBDIVISION,
UNIT 1, LOT 15, BLOCK C, IN SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 48
SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY (BONITA
SPRINGS) FLORIDA - MOTION FOR DENIAL - FAILED;
MOTION FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to 7A, and this item
requires that participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by commission members.
Marilyn L. Ross, trustee of the Marilyn L. Ross Trust,
represented by R. Bruce Anderson and Douglas A. Lewis of Roetzel
and Andress is requesting a variance for a 10- foot encroachment into a
20- foot required rear yard setback for a swimming pool and screen
enclosure, leaving a 10- foot rear yard on a waterfront lot as set forth in
LDC section 4.02.03.
Page 220
May 24, 2005
The subject property is located at 221 W. 3rd Street in the Little
Hickory Shores Subdivision, Unit 1, Lot 15, Block C, Section 5,
Township 48 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, and in parens,
Bonita Springs, because that's a mailing address, even though they're
in Collier County -- didn't know we had that, but -- Florida.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And everyone who is going to provide
testimony in this hearing, please stand to be sworn.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. LEWIS: Good afternoon.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute. Let me get the ex parte
disclosure done.
Commissioner Halas, do you have any ex parte disclosure?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I do. I had a meeting with the
petitioner in regards to this item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I also had a meeting with the
petitioner in regard with to item and his representative.
Commissioner Fiala?
MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes, I had one as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I watched the planning
commission meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No other correspondence.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I will get Commissioner Coletta's
ex parte disclosure when he returns to the podium.
Let's proceed. Go ahead.
MR. LEWIS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Doug Lewis. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Roetzel and
Andress, and I'm co-counsel with Bruce Anderson on this application.
We represent Marilyn Ross as the trustee of the Marilyn Ross Trust,
the owner of the property, in a request for an after-the-fact variance
for an 18-inch encroachment of a swimming pool deck.
Page 221
, ""."..---~.'--'-'-'--'''~
May 24, 2005
The property's located at 211 West 3rd Street in the Little
Hickory Shores Subdivision. A survey of the property shows that the
swimming pool deck is about four feet, four inches above the lot grade
at the stem wall and about five feet, six inches above the top of the
seawall.
As such, the pool deck is about 18 inches higher than permitted
by the dimensional standards under the land development code in
order to have a 10- foot rear yard setback, which is -- the dimensional
standard is four feet in Collier County, except for Marco Island and
the Isles of Capri, which have a seven-foot dimensional standard,
vertical standard.
The swimming pool deck is at approximately the same elevation
as the first floor elevation of the home, and the lot elevation was raised
to bring the finished floor elevation of the house in compliance with
FEMA flood regulations, which puts it at about 11.1 feet.
The applicant's builder obtained building permits for the pool
deck on March 22nd, 2002. At the time the building permit
application was submitted, the plans and the drawings submitted did
not show or contain these dimensions for the top of the seawall deck
or the top of the sea -- or the top of the pool deck.
The county now requires that these applications show these
elevations and -- prior to the issuance of the building permits.
On December 10th of 2002, the applicant received a temporary
CO, Certificate of Occupancy, for the pool deck and the pool
structure. The swimming pool deck was constructed approximately
two and a half years ago, so it's been there for a while.
And as required by the land development code, we've provided
notices to abutting landowners, and to date, our office has not received
any objections based on this application.
Further, we've received a letter from the owners to the east of the
subject property. Their names, Mr. Douglas Grant, is one of the
owners, his wife Bonnie. And they live at 217 3rd Street, and they
Page 222
May 24, 2005
provided a support letter, which I have, which I'd like to enter for the
record. I can give a copy, to you, I'm sure at this time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Is that the end of the
presentation?
MR. LEWIS: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, okay.
MR. MUDD: Give me the letter.
MR. LEWIS: Also the neighbor to our west, Douglas Smith, met
with Planner Mike Bosi and confirmed that he's not opposed to the
current height of the pool deck.
The staff supports our client's application and the planning
commission, on May 5th, voted 6-3 to support the application.
Our client requests approval of the variance so that the pool deck
and seawall can remain at its current state, otherwise our clients will
suffer a hardship by either lowering the pool deck by about 18 inches
or raising the seawall by 18 inches, and we ask for your
recommendation. I'm happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm going to save mine until staff
makes their presentation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Staff, we'd like to hear from you
now.
Do we have any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. BOSI: Good afternoon, Commission. Mike Bosi, zoning
and land development review. As the applicant has indicated, the
petition had gone before the planning commission. It received
approval of 6- 3. It had been reviewed by county staff, and we had
found -- or we had initiated a recommendation of approval.
We felt that the -- the fact that it was an after-the fact variance,
that the FEMA elevations related to the physical condition of the land
Page 223
_.._......._~
May 24, 2005
and requirement of elevating the land to meet the FEMA requirements
were somewhat working against the regulations related to the seawall,
because of the seawall being static and the fill being brought in to
elevate the land worked against the regulations for the four-foot
compliance or four-foot height above the seawall.
We haven't -- to date we haven't received any opposition from the
__ from the adjoining property owners. I had met with the adjoining
property owner last week, and just this morning I was presented with a
letter of support from Mr. and Mrs. Grant of 217 3rd Street, the
neighbors to the east.
The reason for approval had been documented within the staff
report and highlighted within the executive summary. And with that, I
will open myself up to any questions the board may have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I've got a number of
questions. I'm surprised that when the -- my understanding there was
a house on this property, and that house was removed from that
property and a new structure put on there; is that correct?
MR. BOSI: My research did not indicate or go beyond the
building permit for the orig -- for the existing house there, so I do not
have knowledge of a house prior to that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, the point I'm trying to make
here is that when you start to build a new structure on there -- and I
think we were -- the county was mislead, because when a builder
decides that he's going to bring that land up to FEMA, in our land
development code, it was already pretty much spelled out that for
every four foot in elevation -- or every four foot that you went up in
elevation, you had to have another setback of 10 feet.
And, of course, he brought in additional dirt. And I would think
that just simple math would say that if he was going to build the pool
deck, that he had to realize that the pool had to be moved back. And I
believe Joe Schmitt has some additional facts that I asked him to
Page 224
,"-._.~^_.'....~.
May 24, 2005
research, and maybe he can bring this up.
But also in our land development code, it's stated that if there was
any structures -- and that's been in there since about 1996 -- that any
structures that move up in the vertical direction, once they exceed four
feet in height, then you need an additional 10 feet back.
And I would think that the contractor has some responsibility
there. Maybe Joe can give us some more insight into how this all
came about where the house was permitted first, and then later on.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, for the record, Joe Schmitt,
administrator of community development/environmental services
division.
This is not a change in recommendation, but I just want to go
through the history of this. And I show this date -- this is the
application, November 19th, '01. The setbacks -- this was strictly for
the building, which -- the house. It did not include the pool, it did not
include the cage.
Setbacks were shown on the permit. Front setback, left side,
right side and rear. Well, rear is 25 feet. And with that was the survey
that came in. And you can see right here it shows actually 22 feet.
This is the rear yard setback. Note that on the drawing it shows
proposed pool area. So that was the application for the building
permit.
After the building permit, the building permit was issued. And--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: For the house only, correct?
MR. SCHMITT: For the house only. The building permit
shows, again, the setbacks as required, 25, 25, seven and a half, seven
and a half on the building permit.
Then in March of '0 -- March 21, '02, the applicant came in for a
separate application for the swimming pool, and here's where they
note the 10- foot setback.
And, again, this is a separate permit, so we're on a different
building permit. This was the application, and it showed the 10 feet
Page 225
"_~_"-'_"d_'^'_."_·'_····'_·'·___···'·_··'"'_""·'"·_~,_~
May 24, 2005
from the seawall.
Again at this time, this was at a time when the county was not
checking for the change in elevation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But it was written in our codes; is
that correct?
MR. SCHMITT: But it was in the code.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So that's the responsibility of the
builder; is that correct?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, yes, that's exactly right.
Then in November of '02, this says November 22nd, '02, the
applicant came in for another permit, which is now the screen
enclosure, which was -- again, listed the setbacks. That permit came
in, and the spot survey -- this is when the spot survey was rejected, it
was denied, because we noted at that time when we were checking
elevations for the change in requirement for every 10 feet, if you
exceed the four-foot elevation, you have to have another 10 feet (sic)
setback, and that was denied.
The applicant then came in with the spot survey to show the
elevations, which indicated 5.6 feet, and as briefed, was required then
to proceed with a variance.
So basically the history of that shows that it was a sequential
permitting process. It was the building permit for the structure, then
the building permit for the pool, and then the building permit for the
actual screen enclosure. And once they went vertical basically was
when we detected the violation. Vertical meaning the screen
enclosure.
And we detected the violation. We issued a temporary CO for
the house, and I believe, Mike, still a TCO on the home, or TCO on
the cage, thank you. For the record then, the TCO, Temporary
Certificate of Occupancy currently still exists on the pool screen,
which is the last permit.
I have a drawing that shows the application that came in also for
-----'"-~"^"-,,..-~.._'---
Page 226
May 24, 2005
the home. I can put that up on the wall if you care to see it, but it
really didn't adequately display the pool as an integral structure
associated with the house. It shows the house and floor plan, it shows
the pool separate with no setbacks depicted on the building permit.
Again, you can draw your own conclusions. Based on how this
was processed, I'm not -- I certainly can't draw any conclusions, but it
was incrementally applied as the records indicate when we did a
records search through all the records this -- the permit on this facility.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But the end result is, the house was
really bigger than the size of the lot because they didn't figure in the
pool?
MR. SCHMITT: Not necessarily, Commissioner. Actually what
they could have done, they would have had to have step down out of
the lanai --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Eighteen inches, and then they
would be in compliance.
MR. SCHMITT: -- to -- basically to be in compliance.
Now, I want to clarify, again, for the record that the option
certainly to correct this would be to raise the seawall or put a cap on
the seawall. We currently do not have any prohibition against that in
this county, as was shown on -- this picture here shows frankly how
one can get around the code by raising the seawall in order to maintain
that 10- foot setback.
As long as there's a 10-foot setback without the four-foot change
in elevation from the seawall, you could actually have a 10- foot
setback. Once you exceed that four-foot change in elevation, you
have to go 20 feet from the seawall to the structure that is basically at
this -- we're talking about here would be the pool screen would have to
be 20 feet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But this is another problem that we
have out there that I've been trying to get -- bring forward on an LDC
amendment change, because obviously this does not fit in with the
Page 227
.,...-...----,--
May 24, 2005
engineering integrity of a seawall.
It doesn't have the same seawall engineering specs when you just
sit there and you put a cap on this. And I don't think this -- like I said,
I've been trying to make an LDC change on this through a number of
years and have -- as of right now, have not been very successful.
MR. SCHMITT: And Ms. Murray and I talked about this just
recently in the last week. We're going to be bringing to the board
some kind of a representation to prohibit these changes in the back
yards, basically the seawalls to preclude, shall I say somewhat
creating -- rising the seawall to basically -- to benefit, to maximize the
use of the property.
And actually, and as you all know, the setbacks are there mainly
to protect view corridors of neighboring properties. That's
fundamentally what the setbacks do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand you had letters from
the neighbors on either side, but those neighbors could leave, too, in
three to four years, or maybe two years, so.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, Mr. Schmitt, a couple
questions.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's a chain of events that
leads some people to suspect that there may be -- this was a planned
event to be able to come out with the desired results in that the burden
falls on the petitioner rather than on the county, even though we have
people at the desk that check the petitions out, and at the time I guess
they were doing them at the desk, and that raised all sorts of problems,
because they were always rushed, now they do them in the back room.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, again, the original permit was for the
home only.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
MR. SCHMITT: And that met all the setback requirements. The
Page 228
May 24, 2005
permit was legally issued and met all the requirements. Then the
applicant came in for the pool permit.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right.
MR. SCHMITT: It was at the pool permit that we did not
evaluate whether he would have to comply with that -- if he violated
that four-foot change in elevation, whether he had to meet the 20-foot
setback from the seawall.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But we didn't catch it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We didn't catch it at that time.
It wasn't actually caught until they came in and applied for the pool
screen and then came in for the spot surveys is when we said, wait a
minute, we need elevation drawings to show where -- what the change
IS.
Now, at the time, again, when they applied for the pool, it was at
that time where we did not have a good system set up within the
county in order to catch that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But the --
MR. SCHMITT: I've since, over 20 months ago, 24 months ago,
implemented a process where all of the setbacks are reviewed and
validated, not at the front counter, but actually back in the office.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My concern is, this sounds an
awful lot like what I went through a couple years ago with the IRS,
you know, for getting advice and everything, but we won't go there.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. And Commissioner, I'm just trying to--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll take care of that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How'd it turn out?
MR. SCHMITT: I'm just trying to point out for the record --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I didn't get any money back, if
that's the question.
I guess the other thing I'd like to know is, let's just say that we're
in agreement that what they're asking for is inappropriate. What
Page 229
~>_,,___~""'C~''''''<"
....' _~'~O>"_ . ~_,.__,"._.,...~_~~~_
May 24, 2005
would be their alternative? How could they get around this and be
able to put the pool in legally?
MR. SCHMITT: Let me correct it. I mean, we're still
recommending -- based on the situation, we're still recommending
approval. But in order to get around it, it's probably the least desirable
alternative, is they simply could come in and put 18 inches cap on the
seawall, backfill behind it, and then meet the requirements for the
setback.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And it would look ugly,
wouldn't it? I would think it would.
MR. SCHMITT: I believe we have a picture of the house; do we
not? You have that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, right here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This one right here, right?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no, that's another example.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh.
MR. SCHMITT: That's not it. Let me --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was with a cap?
MR. SCHMITT: That's the -- that is the picture of the rear of the
house, and --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And then that tall edifice is the
seawall?
MR. SCHMITT: They could basically raise this seawall 18
inches. So they come down here, they would raise the seawall, go the
length -- the entire length of the house, and then bring it up to 18 to 20
inches and backfill behind it. They would -- certainly would have to
be engineered to meet the requirements in regards to the construction
of the house or the construction of the wall, and they could backfill
behind it, and we have no prohibition again that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And my --
MR. SCHMITT: So the alternative may be worse than the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I can't be the judge of that.
Page 230
May 24, 2005
Commissioner Halas will when he gets the mike back, tell me what
that would look like.
The other question I got, and I'll give this up after this one, the
planning commission was split on this a little bit. There was six for it.
How many against, was it?
MR. SCHMITT: Six-three.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. What were the three
opposed to it for? Did they give any reasons?
MR. SCHMITT: Basically as I recall, pretty much the issue of
having asked for a variance again.
Mike, do you recall?
MR. BOSI: At the time when they made the motion, the
opposition did not expound upon the conditions. Earlier in the
proceedings, the simple statement of not -- of not wanting to grant a
variance and set a precedent in the area were the only reasons alluded
to for the opposition.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then let me ask the question
just a little differently so I've got a better feel for what the planning
commission was trying to do.
When variances come forward to the planning commission, is it
usually a 6-3 split?
MR. SCHMITT: No. Each variance, again, is a separate issue.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So they were treating this as a
separate issue?
MR. SCHMITT: But they were -- it's a separate issue. But,
again, they were looking at this from the whole. And this goes back to
several of the problems we've encountered up in the Vanderbilt Beach
area when we began to review all the encroachments into the rear
yards setbacks.
This is one of the homes that was caught, and certainly the
petitioner has every right to come to the board and ask for a variance,
and I'm not -- I'm not going to deny that fact, they certainly do. I
Page 231
May 24, 2005
think the planning commission was somewhat expressing maybe their
frustration over the fact that, here's another request for a variance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I just want to read into the
record here -- and this is on page seven, and it's about the third
paragraph down. Building permits were approved that showed
incorrect setbacks, as was the spot survey that also showed the
incorrect setback. The contractor proceeded to construct the pool and
screen enclosure in accordance with the approved plans.
And this is the most important statement, I think. The contractor
also has a responsibility to ensure that the plans submitted are accurate
and reflect the correct setbacks; therefore, it was in our land
development code in regards to the height and the setbacks in
relationship. And so I think that there's where I stand, is that the
builder has a responsibility in regards to making sure when he builds a
structure, that he is in accordance with all the land development codes
in Collier County and in that particular area.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Are there -- there are no public
speakers.
Do we have any other questions from commissioners?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Commissioner Coletta asked
Commissioner Halas what he thought it would look like. I would love
to hear that answer.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, when you add the I8-inch
cap to the seawall to bring it in accordance, that's just circumventing
the real problem.
I think what they need to do is, I think the builder needs to step
up to it and maybe come up -- I'm not a builder, so I would think that
there would be a lot of options that might be available.
Maybe if they can set the wall in a little bit closer to the house.
I'm not sure how the pool fits into this equation. But as I said, I would
think there would be some options that should be open.
Page 232
May 24, 2005
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, in this case the only options
would be, one, is put the cap on the seawall and backfill or lower the
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Tear it up.
MR. SCHMITT: -- lanai. Yes, tear out the pool and lower it to
18 inches.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, not the whole lanai. You
could just -- could set it to whatever the setback has to be and lower it.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, in actuality, I mean, you would have to
rebuild the whole pool. So I just -- so you understand that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any further questions by
Commissioners? Is there a motion?
MR. LEWIS: If I may--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. LEWIS: -- just address a few of those comments that were
made on behalf of our client.
The first question was relating to the status of the property.
There was no home on the property when our clients purchased the
land. It was vacant.
Secondly, the building permits were pulled by different
contractors. It wasn't the same contractor. There was a pool
contractor, there was a contractor for the screen enclosure, there was a
contractor for the home.
I just confirmed that with -- you can have staff confirm it as well,
but there are different contractors. It's not novel or unique to have a
pool contractor pull the contract for the pool, or the screen contractor
pull the contract for the screen.
That doesn't give any advantage to the homeowner to the extent
that in today's environment, the applications that were submitted for
the pool, they would have to show the vertical elevation.
I would like to respond to Commissioner Halas' read of the
record on page seven where the staff reads, the building permits were
Page 233
May 24, 2005
approved and showed incorrect setbacks, as was a spot survey that
also showed the incorrect setback.
I want to make the record very clear that that is not facially what
it purports to say. If you look at the actual survey that was submitted
-- and I have a copy of that that I can put up on the screen -- the
setbacks were correct. There was no incorrect setback in relation to
the side-yard setback or the rear-yard setback. What was omitted or
what was missing was the vertical that -- the spatial requirement
between the top of the pool deck and the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But it was in the land development
code.
MR. LEWIS: No, you're correct. But I want to make sure it's
accurate. No, we all agree that at the time the building permit was
submitted or applied for by our client, that there was no submission of
the vertical elevation between -- or the separation between the top of
the seawall and the top of the pool deck.
The plans were -- the survey was accurate, and there was no
mistakes or inaccuracy. It omitted that requirement in relation to the
vertical.
This is a copy of the provision in the land development code.
And for those of you who are not lawyers, many times the code is
very difficult to understand and digest. And the requirement that
we're talking about here is really in the form of a footnote.
If you look at the setback requirement for waterfront property, it's
a 10- foot rear-yard setback. And it is -- it is -- there's a footnote, and
you have to look at the footnote. You know, and I understand that, and
I'm not -- I'm not going to stand before you and indicate that there was
some error on the part of U.S. Homes.
But if you look at your planning commission -- or the staff report
and the testimony that was given before the planning commission,
there was acknowledgement of error on the part of the county in
failing to request the setback.
Page 234
May 24, 2005
That position, that policy's changed. When a party comes in
before the -- to pull a building permit, they're now required to show
that on the survey. And had that been done, we could have addressed
the issue either by raising the seawall at the time, lowering the pool
deck. Now the improvements are in place and we have an economic
hardship.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So you're telling me -- what you're
telling me, the bottom line is, don't hold me accountable with the land
development code as -- if I'm the builder of a home?
MR. LEWIS: No. What I'm telling--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, you are.
MR. LEWIS: -- you is, I'll acknowledge that there is an
accountability, but at the same time, in the spirit of cooperating with --
the government cooperating with the community, when we -- as we do
now, when an applicant comes in, there's a verification.
If you're going to impose a setback, then tell us what's wrong
with the building plans, tell us what's deficient, and then we can
correct the hardship -- the problem before we have a hardship, before
we sink dollars into the project. And so we're just asking you for
cooperation.
N ow I understand, putting all that aside, what we're left with
now, we have a property, that I think you've seen the pictures, that the
neighbors are not opposed to. There's been no opposition. There's the
two neighbors that have given support to keeping the property as is.
If the applicants -- if the application's denied, then we're left with
lowering the pool deck about 18 inches and creating a step down,
that's one alternative, or we're left with the option of raising the
seawall, and that's what we have before you.
We're asking that you consider the request.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's my understanding when you
ask for a permit or, in this case a pool, is our staff takes a look at the --
Page 235
May 24, 2005
our law, the Board of Commissioners, see if it conforms to it. And you
got a building permit based upon the plans that you submitted for the
pool, correct?
MR. LEWIS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I see what you're saying is,
it's kind of dual responsibility.
MR. LEWIS: It helps. It helps to cooperate. And I'm not trying
to put an agtig (sic) in it, but I think your record needs to be clear,
there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever -- this is not a case where
there was a blatant misrepresentation or deception.
What we're talking about is trying to work together to avoid
putting these kinds of dollars into projects that ends up in resulting in
a real hardship.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In all reality, what you're going
to do in this case is raise the seawall. And I mean, if it was my home,
I would do that. I wouldn't tear out the pool to lower it and conform to
the board's rules. You could conform to it by raising the seawall.
And, of course, we kind of took a look at what happens around the
neighborhood.
I'm not sure if the neighbors, or the neighborhood would want
that kind of visual aesthetics, but I guess I'd have to refer to the
commissioner of the district, if that's what -- obviously that's going to
be the solution. Is that what's acceptable to the neighborhood?
MR. LEWIS: It's been in place for two and a half years. We
haven't had any issues with complaints.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what was the big deal? I
mean, it was all done. And two years later, what happened?
MR. LEWIS: Well, it's been in place two and a half years. In '03
there was the code violation that was issued on the property, and here
we are today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Was there a motion--
Page 236
~._-
May 24, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I didn't hear a motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't -- well, I'll leave that up to
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm not going to make a motion on
it. I'm just telling you where I stand on it.
You know, and we're going to have a number of these come
back, and so, you know, then what we're going to do is even make the
problem even worse because we're going to just keep adding concrete
block instead of having engineering requirements in regards to raising
the seawall. So all they do is, to get around this, is to end up putting
cinder block on it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: One thing that we did not do,
Commissioner Coletta was absent when we had our ex parte
disclosures, and I'm going to let him make his ex parte disclosure now,
and he can enter into this discussion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Fine. I appreciate that, and I'll
try to be brief.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Start the timer, please.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Meetings. I had some meetings
with the petitioner. That's it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll make a motion for denial on
this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion for denial by
Commissioner Halas. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll give him a second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta as the
second.
Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's nobody here
Page 237
-~^._-
May 24, 2005
representing the neighborhood, and of course, Commissioner Halas
represents the neighborhood. And if this is going to be, like he stated,
the proliferation along the walls or the waterways, is it -- what do you
think the neighbors would think about --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I've been after staff for two
years now to come up with an LDC amendment to address this, and it
hasn't come about yet so, one way or another we've got to -- we've got
to end what you just see here on -- this is another home that is in the
Vanderbilt area, so you can see here they must have at least a
four- foot extension of the seawall. And as you can you see, all it is is
a cement cap. It doesn't have anything to do with the integrity, or the
structural integrity of the seawall itself.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just conforms to the land
development code.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just conforms so that they can get
around and -- get around the idea of a setback so that you can even
increase the size of the home on the footprint of the land.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The -- if I could make an observation.
You see from a practical standpoint, or at least right on this particular
house -- not the one we're looking at now, because this isn't the house
that's under consideration -- but from a practical standpoint, our
choices are these, deny this and they're going to put an 18- inch
extension on the seawall, which is likely to look worse than the
structure as it is right now.
If we were to require that they put in some additional vegetation
around that raised pool deck, it might actually look better than the
alternative of forcing them into putting in a higher cap on the thing.
Now, if we had the prohibitions against the cap, I would agree, I
think, with Commissioner Coletta -- Commissioner Halas, because
you've got to put a stop to these at some point in time. You can't just
keep doing this.
But when they've got an alternative that could be a more
Page 238
.^".~---
May 24, 2005
unsightly alternative than the current situation, I think we have to act
in the best interest of the community and try to keep it as pleasing as
we possibly can. And I don't know if requiring additional vegetation
around the base of that wall would solve that problem for you and the
neighbors.
What do you think?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Probably, that would probably
solve the case. But we had a case in point, and I guess I've established
my criteria, and I'm telling you where -- I'll tell you where I'm coming
from.
That recently we had another situation where somebody also
built a pool and needed a 14-foot variance, if you remember. And I'm
sure there's a couple of more that are going to be coming before us.
And I've pretty much taken a stand, and it's my own stand in regards
to that, some way or another we have to make sure that the builder is
accountable for his actions. I'm not sure how we can go about doing
that. And as you can see, we've got a couple of other ways of looking
at that.
So you, my fellow commissioners, you vote the way you feel you
need to vote, okay, and I'm going to vote the way I'm going to vote on
this.
So I understand where you're coming from. But I just feel that
there's some issues out here that not only in my area are these
prevalent, but I believe in other areas that are going to be redeveloped
in other commissioners' districts, they're going to run across the same
problems.
And as soon as we can address all of these little issues in the land
development code, it's going to be a lot easier on all of us in regards to
when these come forward, then there's not going to be any loophole
open. There's going to have to be real accountability to make sure that
we follow the land development code. Dot all the I's and cross all the
T's.
Page 239
---..-.-...,,,,..-
May 24, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would agree.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I totally agree. And I think we
ought to have a plan in place, not only for those that rip a place down
and put a new one up, we should have a code for that. Those that have
already been built and maybe have to come back to us, you know, you
don't want to just give away the house because they've come in, and
you don't want to -- every time somebody comes along and builds it a
little bit wrong, maybe -- whether it be purposely or not, you don't
want to give them the store, and yet at the same time, there are
instances where you don't want it to look unsightly in the
neighborhood.
So I think we need to do something about discussing this at
maybe like a workshop or something, come up with a plan and get
your LDC in place.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I can always see where
somebody's going to make mistakes that are going to encroach an area
offour, five, maybe six inches, eight inches, but when you make
something this blatant where it's 18 inches above what it should be,
and it was already written in the code, and the person who built the
pool didn't take that into account, or if there was some questions, I'm
sure he could have went to staff, even though it wasn't required on the
print, but it's pretty clear in the LDC at that point in time what the
elevation limits were and what you had to do to address those limits.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion on the floor.
Commissioner Coletta, are you still wanting to discuss this?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I really do. I just wanted to
make sure that I understand exactly what we're doing here. They only
have to put a cap on there, and both neighbors on each side had no
objection before, might have an objection now. Once that cap goes on,
Page 240
_._~
May 24, 2005
they made it, we change the ordinance in another year, and they're
grandfathered in.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we've got a situation here
that's really a no winning situation. I'm going to keep my second in
place. I'm putting this burden on you. I'm sorry, I'm going to do it.
It's your district, it's what you feel comfortable with, your residents are
going to feel comfortable with, it's just that I think it's going to be
unsightly as anything, and I'm a poor judge of architectural character,
I'll tell you that.
But if you want to keep the motion in place, my second remains,
and you're assured of the fact that they get denied the petition and the
wall goes up 18 inches, they're home free.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, not necessarily. It has to --
MR. SCHMITT: May be the stalemate. Just to put everybody to
rest, I mean, there are -- there are processes in place now to prevent
this. I mean, you're just not going to have any future issues regarding
examples like you have here. But what Commissioner Halas is
saying, there are those that we know of that we caught in 2002. This
one was from 2001. Processes are in place now to prevent it. What
you're dealing with now are --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But there still are some out there
that you're going to catch.
MR. SCHMITT: You're going to see another one here in
probably two weeks, three weeks, about a month, another one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, that's encouraging.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And there'll be another one after
that probably.
MR. SCHMITT: If you recall, we had about 22 that we
discovered when we did a thorough review. Code enforcement went
out and did a thorough review of the entire Vanderbilt Beach area. I
believe we've got that down to about 13. Some are being corrected,
Page 241
..~..'"-'--
May 24, 2005
but you're going to see some more of the variances coming in.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I don't want to belabor this point
too long. We do have a motion on the floor. I'm going to call the
motion.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
So it fails 3-2 with Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner
Halas in the minority.
Now, is there a motion for approval with some conditions with
respect to this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make a motion to approve
with -- what have we got for the trees; are they 30- foot on center?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. You could go with something
lower just to cover that foundation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. To have a vegetative
landscape buffer of a hedge to cover that stem wall of the pool. And,
you know, I would hate to see -- the reason I'm making a motion for
yes, I would hate to see them raise the seawall, because it's not going
to be good for the neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It could be a thickly planted hedge,
right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, native hedge within our
land development code as far as the plant species.
MR. LEWIS: Our client would be amenable to bring the hedge
in there to create that buffer.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion just because
I'm afraid of what would happen to the neighborhood if we didn't do it
Page 242
"'...--.----,..-
May 24, 2005
this way.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any further discussion?
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas is dissenting, and
the motion passes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, we've got to come up
with a plan --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're right. There's got to be some --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- before we have 22 more coming
in here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- penalty. Yeah, there's got to be some
penalty. There's got to be some pain somewhere.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Twenty-two more coming
up? Geez.
MR. MUDD: Thirteen more.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thirteen more?
MR. MUDD: Yeah. They got 11 or so resolved.
Item #7B
V A-2004-AR-7005; WALDEMAR BOKRAND OF GOLDEN GATE
IMPORT EXPORT, INC., REPRESENTED BY DAVID MCKEE OF
CONSUL-TECH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC.,
REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE LANDSCAPE
BUFFER REQUIREMENT BETWEEN USES IN A PUD FOR A
VARYING WIDTH FROM 10 FEET TO 1 FOOT FORA TOTAL
Page 243
_~~_^'_"_""'__""_"'~"___'.~"_L"~~___"'·_
May 24, 2005
DISTANCE OF 101 LINEAR FEET ALONG THE SOUTH
PROPERTY LINE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN
THE DON CARLOS SUBDIVISION OF KINGS LAKE PUD,
SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA - MOTION FOR DENIAL - APPROVED
Commissioner, that brings us to the next item, which is 7B. This
item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure
be provided by commission members.
It's variance 2004-AR-7005, Waldemar Bokrand of Golden Gate
Import Export, Inc., represented by David McKee of Consul-Tech
Development Services, Inc., requesting a variance to reduce the
landscape buffer requirement between uses in a PUD for a varying
width from 10 feet to one-foot for a total distance of 101 linear feet
along the south property line.
The subject property is located in the Don Carlos subdivision of
Kings Lake PUD, Section 7, Township 50 south, Range 26 east,
Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Will all those people who are
going to provide testimony in this hearing, please stand and be sworn
In.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. As far as ex parte disclosure is
concerned, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've just -- I've had -- this is what
now,8B?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 7B.
MR. MUDD: 7B.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 7B.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 7B. I've had correspondence, and
I've also talked to staff members on this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
Page 244
,..".".....-.....-.---
r _.,~.,.,..._....."~".,~,._."..,-
May 24, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I had correspondence, and
I ran into Mr. Waldemar at the Publix market back about a week ago,
and we discussed it there, and also, too, I have had two phone calls.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And staff, too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I spoke to the county attorney,
and then I received some e-mails and letters on this topic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I received calls. In many case
I didn't get to talk with the people, although we talked to each other's
answering machines, I did talk with one lady. I went out to see the
property, and I walked the property, which was an eye opener, and
talked with staff about it, received a lot of e-mails, and they're all here
in my folder.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I have received telephone calls and
correspondence from concerned citizens, and we are ready to go. Go
ahead.
MR. McKEE: Good afternoon. For the record, my name's Dave
McKee with Consul-Tech Development Services.
As indicated, our request is to allow a reduction in the landscape
buffer along a portion of the south side of Don Carlos subdivision
within the Kings Lake development to allow a reduction from 10 feet
down to one foot, to allow an access drive to be constructed.
I want to point out that actually 61 feet of this already exists.
The area that you see here is an existing driveway that's in place that
serves these four existing residential units. As part of this variance
request, Mr. Bokrand is also wanting to build six additional town
homes here, four additional town homes here. We would add an
additional 41 feet in this variance area that would be within that
10- foot buffer to allow the driveway to curl up and serve these four
units, and also provide access to a parking lot up here.
Page 245
+-'--""~-"--^-'-
May 24, 2005
This variance is required due to the fact that the original PUD on
this property, ordinance 82-52, did not address landscaping, and the
development plans, based on what was built both in the Dan Carlos
Subdivision and the adjacent Greenwood Village Subdivision did not
require any buffer. Greenwood lies to the south.
I think a picture's worth a thousand words. I'll give you an aerial
view of this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Boy, that's worth a thousand words. It's
upside down.
MR. McKEE: Once you -- once you take a second to look at it, I
think you'll understand it a little better. These are the four existing
units here, and this is the driveway that presently exists. This is the
Greenwood Village area. Weare asking that this driveway be allowed
to stretch along this particular area in this open space and then curl up
around and serve the homes that are here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's the -- the green colored
homes? Are they in -- within this -- confines of this -- or is this
another village?
MR. McKEE: On this side?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. McKEE: That's part of Kings Lake Estates also. That is the
property known as Steeple Chase of Naples.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. McKEE: That is, again, part of the overall PUD for Kings
Lake.
The current 1991 land development code requires this 10- foot
buffer, and that's why the development -- that's what the development
would technically have to adhere to, given the contemplated
development plans, and that's why we're here asking for the variance.
Obviously, when you bring a new development or an existing
development up to -- or add to it, you have to bring it up to the current
standards.
Page 246
^.....---
May 24, 2005
I'm going to try to show you a series of photos that Mr. Bokrand
took of the area just to try to give you a better feel for what he's
planning to do.
This is the area looking back at the four-plex that's currently
there. This is the existing driveway. And this, again, is where he
proposes to run this driveway along the hedge that exists here.
You can see that this is a wide open area, and this is one of the
reasons why he wanted to take this route to put this driveway in, and
we'll talk about that a little bit more in a second.
Now, I know that this board put some emphasis on what the
planning commission does when they look at these things, and I'm not
going to pull any punches. We got shot down badly here and didn't
get one vote.
So I'm going to give you a justification why we think the
variance should be approved and also talk a little bit about why we
think the planning commission denied it and why we think there's
some reasons to turn that around.
This is an existing condition, as I indicated. There is already 60
feet there of -- that impacts the 10- foot landscape buffer. We're asking
only for another 41 feet. It's not inconsistent with the adjacent
property in that they don't have a buffer there either.
This is a picture looking down that sidewalk. This, again, is the
four-plex. The property line actually lays right at the edge of this
bush. This sidewalk, for much of its distance, is also only three or
four feet off the existing property line.
So neither Greenwood Village nor this property Don Carlos, have
that 10- foot landscape buffer that's now required by the current code.
There were some comments made by the Greenwood Village
people that they were built after Don Carlos. That is not true.
Greenwood Village went into place first, so Greenwood Village
actually had their development in place. Don Carlos came in after that
point. And, again, they kind of mirrored it. They did not put in the
Page 247
May 24, 2005
10- feet buffer.
We've done some preliminary work on this. We got approval
from the fire department for this particular site plan that you saw
earlier. It has met their requirements for turn-around, and we do have
a sign-off on it.
We now have a letter from the Kings Lake Homeowners'
Association -- this was written to Commissioner Fiala -- that indicated
that they are now in approve -- they favor the proj ect, and I can put
this into the record, but I believe you have a copy of it in your files
already. So the overall Kings Lakes Development is in favor of this
particular proj ect.
We also think that this particular layout and the need for this
variance to the 10- foot easement provides the least impact or creates
the least impact to the overall area as far as development.
This is an aerial view, looking, again, down on the four existing
units, Greenwood Village. This is Steeple Chase.
The planning commission had asked us to look at putting the road
in on the north side of these particular units. You can see here that
that is very heavily treed and vegetated, and one of the reasons that
Mr. Bokrand put together the site plan he did was because this is a
wide open area that would allow this driveway to curve in here, and
all you're impacting is open space.
If you put the road on the north side, like the planning
commission suggested that we do, you can see how much vegetation
you're going to take out.
This picture -- this same picture shows it from the other direction.
Again, you're looking, you can see how much vegetation would have
to be taken out through this particular area to put the roadway on the
north side.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aren't the other houses going there
that you just showed in the picture?
MR. McKEE: No. The other houses -- let me go back to the
Page 248
,_.._....,..~-<>--
May 24, 2005
original site plan.
What we would do under a revised plan, if we routed the road
along the north side, is we would push these units down, put the road
in here. We would take out the pool and all the vegetation and
everything that sits in this particular area.
Some of these trees would come out, yes. But we feel the area
around -- around this is going to be protective a little bit more. Of it
will come out, yes, but not all of it. We feel it's less of an impact.
One of the things that the current ordinance does or has in place
for this particular project is that Mr. Bokrand is allowed to build 17
homes based on the number of units that are left in this PUD. He's
proposing to build only 10, and he's proposing to build a townhouse
type layout, much like the four units that are in there.
He would have the ability to come back and do 1 7 less expensive
condominium units, if you will, on this site and stuff them in. He can
go three stories high, 30 feet. He would prefer not to do that. He
would prefer to go with 10 townhouse units that are of higher value,
and therefore, it would keep the value of the overall development a
little bit higher. And that's one of the reasons that he's also pushing
for this particular variance so that he can lay these out the way he's got
the site plan currently proposed.
Now, there were a number of issues with the planning
commission that we object to somewhat. We don't feel that we had the
chance to address them, and so we've done a little bit more homework
since that planning commission hearing.
One of the issues was that they felt we had a self-created
hardship here due to the fact that this land at all -- at one time was all
under unified control and it was split off so that there could not be
room for a buffer to be put in there.
We searched the property records and did not have a lot of luck
understanding exactly how this piece came to be subdivided, but we
did get a record -- a letter from a gentleman named Rolf Boehringer,
Page 249
.~_._,_.-,.,--
May 24, 2005
who was the original owner of this piece that's -- where Don Carlos
sits.
He writes, hereby, I, Rolf Boehringer, previous owner of Don
Carlos, certify that I was never the owner of any of the bordering
properties now consisting of the Steeple Chase of Naples, Greenwood
Village, or Kings Lake Woods.
So I don't believe that the planning commission's position that
this was a self-created hardship by the fact that the land was
subdivided is an accurate statement. This piece has alway existed,
more or less, as an individual partner, or piece, and Mr. Bokrand did
not create this problem by himself.
As I indicated earlier, the planning commission suggested
flipping the site and running the road on the north side. One of the
problems with that that I want to point out is that there is the piece to
the north that one of you mentioned earlier. If this road were to run
through here, that road legally could be within 27 feet of the lanais of
those back units.
If you look at the potential impact, if you want to call it an
impact to the Greenwood Village, there is the side of one building
only that's impacted, and the closest we'd get to that with our roadway
is 33 feet.
You will notice, too, that this is not a residential side. There are
not lanais here like there are in the Steeple Chase area. Basically
you've got a bank of air-conditioning units on that side of that
building, so that we feel the impact, if there is any, is very, very
minimal, and that's why this road should be utilized.
The planning commission raised the issue that the original
development should have had a six-foot buffer based on ordinance
76-30. A review of that ordinance -- and it was a little tough to get
off-line, it's quite slow -- but it -- number 20, which is the landscape
buffer area in the original ordinance back in 1976, says the use of
properly planted and maintained buffer areas may reduce and ease
Page 250
r-,. ..__.......~,m
---.,.......-.-
May 24, 2005
potential incompatibility between or among uses -- among different
uses of lands in proximity to each other.
So if you take this at its face value, there was no need for a
buffer. There was not that six-foot buffer that the planning
commission thought there might be there. And, again, the
development plans bore this out in that neither Greenwood Village nor
Don Carlos had that buffer.
The Greenwood Village residents during their testimony that the
planning commission heard indicated that this construction would
decrease the value of their particular property. Again, we did a little
bit of research on values. I know that economics don't necessarily
come into these things, but I do want to make it clear that what Mr.
Bokrand is trying to do here is something that we believe will enhance
the values.
Although there is no commitment that he can make in the public
at this stage, he has indicated that he expects these to be in the
$500,000 range. The last home -- the last unit sold in Greenwood
Village sold in October of 2004, and the price on that was only
$174,900, so we don't feel that we're going to be hurting the value of
the Greenwood Village properties in any way, shape, or form.
The Greenwood Village residents indicated that the variance
would allow these new buildings to be built on top of theirs. Again,
this is not the case. The only reason that we're here for is the variance
on the -- on the 10- foot buffer. We're not asking for any setback
changes whatsoever or any variances on that.
Just in closing, I realize that this is kind of a small matter in
regard to all the things you've talked about today, but Mr. Bokrand
feels very strongly about this particular development. He has been
working in Naples for a long time and has built over 250 homes within
this community without a problem.
He feels that what he's doing is good for the overall Kings Lake
Subdivision, and he would like you to reconsider this, even though the
Page 251
May 24, 2005
planning commission looked upon this unfavorably. He would like the
opportunity to speak later, as I would, if there are any questions or
comments. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir, we have six.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioners, do you have any
questions of the petitioner?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. How about staff?
MS. WILLIAMS: Good evening. For the record, my name is
Heidi Williams, principal planning with zoning and land development
reVIew.
I think that the petitioner did a very good job explaining the
project, so I will keep my comments fairly brief.
The planning commission did vote unanimously to recommend
denial of this petition. Staff review did find that the variance request
could comply with the land development code.
There are four stipulations in the staff report that are
recommended, and you can read those. I'll -- I think the most
important one is that every other aspect of this site will be required to
conform to land development code standards, and the second most
important is probably that all plant material that would be displaced by
approval of a variance be required to be planted on the same impacted
side of the property on this south side.
I'd be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioners, do you have any
questions? Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Actually, this piece of property was
developed and then this individual bought this property. I would think
that, being a businessman, that he would look at this to see if there was
possibilities of being developed without encroaching into the setback
area here, or this buffer area that we're talking about.
Page 252
May 24, 2005
I'm not sure it's the obligation of the commission here to find a
way for this gentleman to see how he can development his property. I
think that he should be a little more creative and see if there's other
designs that he can work with without the encroachment of his buffer
area. That's my concern.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You said it could comply with
the land development code? What did you mean by it could comply?
MS. WILLIAMS: If granted the variance, the road could be
extended, and the conceptual site plan could then comply with all
aspects of the land development code.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you tell me how wide that
little road is?
MS. WILLIAMS: An estimate would be approximately 20 feet.
It would be required to meet the standard width for a driveway.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But it isn't that now, right?
MR. McKEE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It is that now? It is 20 feet? It
looked -- I drove down it, and it looked very small. I didn't know how
-- you know, if you've got a garbage truck in there, you extended it, I
didn't know how it would get past that area, or a fire engine or -- the
property is very small. It doesn't -- you don't show the end of it here,
but I thought it was -- it would just like squish these places in there.
MS. WILLIAMS: One aspect of the original variance request,
there was additional length requested for the variance, and that was to
accommodate an emergency vehicle turn-around.
Staff could not -- did not feel that that portion of the portion
request could be supported, and the applicant subsequently amended
their request to show this turn-around area as a stabilized and sodded
location for turn-around of vehicles like an emergency vehicle or a
garbage truck.
At this -- at the time of site plan review, the applicant would be
Page 253
.,---
May 24, 2005
required to explain how -- what method of utility and trash collection
they would expect to have on the property.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My last question for this moment
would be, these other ones that are existing in like the middle of the
property, did Mr. Bokrand build those, too?
MS. WILLIAMS: I don't believe that he did. They were on the
site when he purchased the property, and they're held under separate
ownership.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay . We're going to break after the
next question by Commissioner Halas. For 10 minutes.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're still looking -- the applicant
is still looking for a 101 linear feet variance; is that correct?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, that's correct, and like--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This isn't like 10-foot length. This
is 101 foot?
MS. WILLIAMS: It's 101 total feet, and a portion of that is
already constructed roadway.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So he's not in compliance at the
present time then?
MS. WILLIAMS: His site plan was approved and it was
constructed according to the approved site plan at the time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But now he has to come up to the
code standards that we have in place today?
MS. WILLIAMS: Further construction would require a site plan
that met all code.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're going to break for 10
minutes. We'll be back here at 6:15.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're back in session.
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Page 254
.-.---.-,-----
May 24, 2005
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're back in session. Let us
continue.
Commissioners, do you have any other questions concerning this
issue? Okay. We have--
MS. FILSON: Six.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- public comment. Okay.
MS. FILSON: The first one is--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry?
MS. FILSON: Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Each person will be limited to
three minutes. Please don't be repetitive. If you don't like it, just tell
us you don't like it. If you do like it, tell us you like it and why, and
then we'll proceed with the hearing.
So call the first two speakers. If one will go to this podium, and
one go to that podium, we can keep it flowing fairly well. Give
everybody a chance to speak.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Yvonne Bokrand.
MS. DONATELLI: I was wondering if I could possibly speak
later because I may not need to speak, and I don't want to be
redundant if they say what I wanted to express.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How could I turn down an offer like
that?
MS. FILSON: The second speaker is the same case. Waldemar
Bokrand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. FILSON: So you're going to let them be last?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I might not let them speak, but
we'll see.
MS. FILSON: Nancy Payton. She'll be followed by Lynn
Reese.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This isn't a gift, is it?
Page 255
-."-..-.-....".---
May 24, 2005
MR. WHITE: I know there's going to be issues about gifts.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're not trying to bribe us, are you,
Nancy?
MS. PAYTON: With a 49-cent ruler, I hope not.
Nancy Payton, and I'm here representing myself today. I live in
Kings Lake. I live in Bristol Square. And Jim, if you could put the
map up for me, I'll show you, because I do live close to this site.
This is the site in question, and I live over here in Bristol Square.
I just live across the lake, a short distance across the lake.
And I'm here today to support my neighbors, who you're going to
hear after me, my friends, and my dog walking buddies.
I live in Bristol Square, Kings Lake, because it's an established
neighborhood, it has deep setbacks, it has significant opened space, it
doesn't have fences between communities. It is a community that
interacts.
What you have today before you is a petition to reduce the
minimum buffer of 10 feet to one foot, and that's why I brought the
ruler to show you 12- inches, and really, that's no buffer at all when
you think about it.
It's not a -- compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and
it's akin to putting 10 pounds of flour into a five-pound sack. It just
doesn't fit on that small space.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How about other --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's called a blivit (phonetic).
MS. PAYTON: We've heard today that it may be a self-imposed
hardship, that it's known and it's acknowledged in the staff report that
this is an awkward piece of property with limitations that were known
when the gentleman, the petitioner, purchased it. Ifhe didn't know
that, he didn't do due diligence, and shame on him.
Again, the ruling that's the buffer that they're requesting. I
wanted to comment on the Kings Lake letter, that at the annual
meeting of which Commissioner Coy Ie, you were there, that
Page 256
. ._^._'_..._._~'--
May 24, 2005
afterwards there was a meeting of the board, and at that board meeting
there was an appeal to become involved in this issue and to take a
stand.
And I was told, because I made that appeal, I was told, quote,
little lady, that's not of our concern. Now I find out there's been a
meeting, they've taken action, and those of us who were concerned
and opposed to this variance were not consulted, were not invited to
come and present our point of view when the petitioner presented her
-- his. So I think you need to know that, that there's history and
something lacking in that letter.
Also, the issue of it's either 10 units or 17 units, I'm not sure that
those 1 7 units isn't a bad idea because I haven't seen the site plan, and
neither have you. And that implication that 17 units would be cheap
units is just not so.
And I'll tell you that my condo does not sit on the lake, and one
just above it in the next building over sold for a quarter of a million
dollars. So condos can bring a great deal on Kings Lake. And being
on the lake directly, 17 condos, might not be so bad if it's a compatible
use.
That's my comments, and I urge you to deny because it is not a
compatible use and it's not appropriate for the Kings Lake community.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, little lady.
MS. FILSON: Lynn Reese. She'll be followed by Jacqueline
Baczenski.
MR. MUDD: Is that the way you want it, or you want it like
this? Okay? And I'll bring it a little bit closer. How's that? All right.
MS. REESE: Right here is the dividing line between Greenwood
Village and the property, and the road currently runs right along here,
but this hedge is what I'm planning to talk about.
Greenwood Village built that hedge after they built their
buildings and realized that there was no visual barrier between
Page 257
May 24, 2005
Greenwood Village and those four little units in the middle, and this
building is the one that is most directly impacted.
Contrary to what Mr. McKee said, the lanais of the eight units in
this building look directly over. It's not this building here on the end.
It's this one right here that all of the lanais look directly into that area.
We contacted Dr. Doug Coldwell of the University ofPlorida
extension office and asked him what could happen to the vegetation in
that hedge if a road came within one foot of that hedge, and his reply
was, to whom it may concern, it would be ill-advised to crimp the root
system of the eureka palm hedge if it is to remain vigorous and full
and continue to serve as a visual screen.
This palm is a pretty tough species, but root disruption and soil
compaction due to construction will take a toll on any species. Please
call if you have any questions.
Now, we heard Mr. McKee say that they'll replace anything that
is taken down. These eureka palms currently are -- well, I'm almost
six foot tall. They've got to be over 12 to 15 feet tall, and they've been
there for many, many years.
So anything that is replaced would take years to get back to the
stage that it is today, and so we would be faced with losing much of
that buffer that is currently between Greenwood Village and Don
Carlos.
So as a concerned resident of Greenwood Village, I ask that this
petition be denied. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Jacqueline Baczenski. She'll be followed by
Michael Hurley.
MS. BACZENSKI: Good evening. My name is Jacqueline
Baczenski, and I reside at 2632 Kings Lake Boulevard. I'm here today
representing all 112 unit owners of Greenwood Village.
We stand united in our unanimous decision to oppose this
variance to reduce the landscape buffer from 10 feet to one feet (sic).
Page 258
--~._.-----..-
May 24, 2005
This lot has been vacant for 20 years, primarily because the original
owner lacked vision and put the Don Carlos condos smack in the
middle of the lot, this left a postage-sized lot on Kings Lake that has
remained vacant mainly because its size severely limits its use.
Last year Bokrand Properties purchased this property with full
knowledge of its limitations and with full disregard for the
neighboring property owners.
If this road extension is permitted, it will create a one-way in and
a one-way out situation. All vehicles must turn around to exit the lot.
Since the lot is so small, provisions have been made to shore up a
small patchy grass area so that vehicles can turn around to egress the
property. This not only means UPS and postal deliveries, but fire and
rescue. Can you imagine the havoc that would be involved should a
major fire erupt?
One fire truck can approach the building, but this vehicle will
block the way for additional vehicles to enter and none will be able to
exit. Our safety in a hazardous situation is being severely
compromised.
N ow I understand a letter is going out to the neighboring
property owners, of which I still haven't seen a copy of it, that says, as
much as they value our opinions, they are going ahead with the
revised plan that would include 17 condominiums in lieu of the
proposed up-scale townhouses.
The letter states, the 1 7 condos, each in a three-story building can
be constructed without any of the perceived hardships that are caused
by the currently proposed proj ect.
Let me ask you, Commissioners, how come we must go through
this legal process for a variance to put up four two-story units on this
front lot, but the process is not required to put up seven three-story
units on the same small lot? Is this meant to intimidate us?
Kings Lake is made up of one- and two-story buildings. All the
surrounding condos look similar in sty Ie. Can you envision what a
Page 259
..~"._'_.---
May 24, 2005
three-story building would look like in this area?
One point I'd like to make, and I'm rushing through here.
Property values. I'm told the three-story units will be valued at
$500,000 each and will increase our property values. These are
almost double what condos are going for in Greenwood Village.
From my experience, and I've got 30 years experience in
mortgage banking, not down here, but in Rhode Island, a unit that
out-prices -- and I'll go quickly -- a unit that is out-pricing its
neighboring market does not bring the market values of the
surrounding houses up. It brings that one down.
The planning board has already denied this. All we can ask now
is that you look at the facts, think about it, and approve -- disapprove
the variance and improve (sic) in our Greenwood Village site.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Michael Hurley. He'll be
followed by Yvonne Bokrand.
MR. HURLEY: Good evening. My name is Michael Hurley. I
live at Greenwood Village, at 2590 Kings Lake Boulevard.
I am reading a statement signed by our neighbors, the Batistas,
since they could not be here. The undersigned, Roy H. Batista and
Mary Kay Batista are the owners of the condominium unit in
Greenwood Village which abuts the Don Carlos subdivision on the
south.
The Collier County Department of Zoning and Land
Development Review has provided the information that the landscape
provisions to which applicants are seeking a variance was first adopted
in 1991. We have also been provided with information that the
present applicant that took place title to the subject premises in 2004.
It is well-established under case law of Florida that owners are
deemed to purchase property with constructive knowledge of
equitable land use regulations.
Page 260
".- ."~.--_."'-------.-
May 24, 2005
In addition, it is virtually inconceivable that an experienced land
developer would acquire real estate without due diligence as to the
land use regulations applicable to the acquired tract. Thus, in all
likelihood, the applicant had actual knowledge of the land use
regulations applicable to the subject tract.
We would like to call your attention to the case of Allstate
Mortgage Corporation of Florida versus the City of Miami Beach, 308
So. 2nd, 629, the Third District Court of Appeals, 1975.
The facts of the Miami-based case are remarkably similar to the
applicable -- application for the variance which has been filed by the
applicant. In the Miami-based case, the applicant for the variance
purchased a home which encroached into the rear yard setback. The
rear yard setback was 20 feet and the applicant's house was within 15
feet of the rear lot line.
The home had been constructed prior to zoning, and the applicant
had purchased the home subsequent to zoning. The applicant sought a
variance for the further encroachment into the 20- foot rear setback
line.
In that case the court found that the applicant acquired the
property chargeable with knowledge of the 20-foot rear setback and
was estopped to assess any hardship created by virtue of a setback
ordinance.
A copy of the Miami-based case is attached, and I'll give it to you
afterwards.
In this application, the buffer is a form of setback requirement.
There is an existing encroachment into the buffer which applicant seek
to further increase. The applicants should be stopped from asserting a
hardship of practical difficulty.
Any hardship or practical difficulty is self-created by the
applicant. The applicant at the time of the acquisition of the property
was well aware of the physical characteristics, size, and configuration
of the tract. The applicant should not be permitted to rely on a
Page 261
--.... ..-..-'----,..-.
May 24, 2005
self-created hardship or practical difficulty to support a variance.
Thompson versus Planning Commission of the City of Jacksonville.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sir, could you wrap it up, please.
MR. HURLEY: All right. And it just mentions, court of appeals,
1985. Other speakers will address the other issues, and it is
respectfully submitted, Roy H. Batista and Mary Kay Batista. And I
will give -- who shall I give a copy to?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. Just give the copy to this lady here.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Yvonne Bokrand. She'll be
followed Waldemar Bokrand.
MS. DONATELLI: For the record, my name's Yvonne
Bokrand-Donatelli, but I am the daughter of the builder.
I was asked by the owners of the current Don Carlos subdivision,
who were not able to attend, to read portions of a letter and read
statements of their concerns.
It's written by David and Catherine McCumber who are part-time
residents here and live in Iowa part of the year, and it states, we own
two of the four ho'mes located in the original Don Carlos subdivision
that was built in 1985, and we understand that there's currently some
controversy related to a variance for landscaping for the proposed
building that is to occur by Bokrand Homes.
We are well into the sixth year of ownership. They live there six
months of the year and are planning to make it a permanent residence
in the future.
It states, all of the owners have been informed of Mr. Bokrand's
plan and what is about to happen on the ground that he has purchased.
We were aware of the variance hearing, and it's in the letter to the
Kings Lake Association, copy attached, on our opinion for their
information. We did not attend the variance meeting purposely, as we
felt Mr. Bokrand had kept us abreast of the variance issues, some of
which was already in place as our driveways currently reside in the
variance and should have been grandfathered in.
Page 262
~.._'--_._"~
May 24, 2005
All were in agreement that we were told no voting would occur,
that there was no need for anyone to waste time in attending.
Now we've have been told that there was some objection from
the Greenwood Village for some pretty weak reasons, and we being
the actual property owners of Don Carlos, need to speak out to voice
our thoughts and concerns on the matter.
We understand that someone objected to car lights coming up the
driveway at night shining in their windows. It asks, have you looked
at the property? We have lived there with their cars coming in at night
shining directly at us since we have lived there. They don't have
garages, and when pulling into their carports on the southeast building
to the west, their lights stay on for a period of time, even after they
have parked. Then they talk about slamming of doors, talking, and
that that is not a quiet environment.
It says, our garages and the proposed garages on our property
won't let that happen to them with the garage doors keeping the noise
down. No matter where the driveway is to be located, speaking about
the variance, we still have to get into our garages, and their lights will
shine in the dark, as well theirs lighting up our area at night.
We feel strongly that the driveway should remain as it is, because
it won't change anything with shining lights and locating it elsewhere.
Then I'm going to try to summarize some of this. It talks about
past experience that they had with a previous owner, that both
communities, Greenwood Village, as well as Don Carlos shares, and
that the property was not well-maintained, there were varmints,
snakes, rodents, things like that, and how much better things are now
that Mr. Bokrand has taken that over.
It talks about a couple other concerns like that. Then it says, we
have been treated like second-class citizens by some to the extent that
in one example -- I'll try to be real quick.
Speaking about the eureka palms. It states that actually Don
Carlos put in the newer section of those to give them more of a barrier.
Page 263
-..-.-...".---
May 24, 2005
Even though it's on the other property side, they contributed the
finances to put in that section.
And so -- just try to sum up, the residents of Don Carlos and
some other residents of King (sic) Lakes --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Very quickly, please, okay.
MS. DONATELLI: -- oppose -- okay -- oppose that because a
lot of the issues that have been brought up is that the variance is going
to change a great deal.
The variance is talking about the 41 feet, or the 40 feet, not the
61 feet, and those 61 feet, that property -- the owners, they need to
have access to their driveway, and that's not a question, and it seems
like that's what a lot of the opposition is to, the driveway that's already
existing, and that can't be changed. That was legally put in. There's
no other way for those owners -- the owners I'm representing to get
that access.
And the eureka palms that were addressed, those aren't being
called into question. Nothing -- nothing of that will be destroyed. The
variance is totally located in a different location.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We understand that part.
MS. DONATELLI: Okay. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Waldemar Bokrand.
MR. BOKRAND: Ladies and gentlemen, Dear Commissioner,
my name is Waldemar Bokrand. I living for 25 years in Naples. I
built over 250 custom homes. I never had a court case and I never had
one complaint in the building department.
I have a letter from the ex-director of the building department
about spot list they call it from building department.
We talking here -- we talking here, Mr. Commissioner Halas
mentioned -- I had told -- I had to look in before I bought the property.
And the Kings Lake -- the Greenwood people told, too, and before I
buy it, I have to look in, I can do it.
Yes, I have the letter from the Collier County Government about
Page 264
-.. --_.~_.-~----
May 24, 2005
the 17 units I'd like to put up or can put up. When I bought the
property I made clear I not made a mistake, I can put up 17 units. I
know I have to switch this street to the right side. This I can do.
Only when I sit together with my engineer and we decided -- this
street in already for over 20 year, and there's been no changes with
this street, what we having here. There will be no changes. This
street never be taken out. It still staying.
And when I went now, I can flip -- like the planning
commissioner said, what about flipping the development? Yes, I can
do it. In this moment I flip development, I have no more public
hearing, I have to have nothing.
I have to take out over 50 100- foot trees. I have to take out -- the
pool is not a pig problem. This is on my property and the street is
mine, too. Only in this moment, I put this street in.
All the four existing houses have the lanai to the street, and the
whole development on Steeple Chase on the right side, this is maybe
20, 30 units, will have the lanai on the street.
Ladies and gentlemen from Greenwood, I came to you to talk
about you what I'm planning to do. I knocked on three doors, and the
first door someone hit the door so hard, I almost hitting my face.
The second door, the lady say, I don't know what you're talking.
Go to my neighbor. And the third door, the lady said come back from
the daytime. Yes, it was six o'clock in the evening, it start to be dark.
I like to talk to you. This is the best, what we can do for you all the
neighbors.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, sir.
Okay. Any questions of the public by commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That was our last speaker, right?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir, that was the last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then we'll close the public hearing.
Any discussion by commissioners?
Page 265
-.._.,~"-----.-
May 24, 2005
All right. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The property owner still has the
ability to build on a property how he sees fit. That's up to his
discretion. There is really no hardship in this case.
I'm going to make a motion for denial based upon the land
development code 9.04.03, criteria B, E, and F.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Henning for denial, and seconded by Commissioner
Halas.
Is there further discussion by the commissioners?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just, if I could, make a
comment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. You've got to
understand that the way this comes together is that generally variances
are granted when there's no objection.
They're not a right. They're something that comes by when the
neighbors can live with it, and I think that's the reason the planning
commission came down the way it did, and probably the way -- the
direction the commission is going now. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
All in favor of the motion, 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 266
...-....-..'..--"--
May 24, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It carries unanimously. It is
denied.
(Applause.)
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to go immediately into
public comment because there's one person who's been sitting here all
day waiting for public comment.
If anybody comes in at the end of the meeting and wants to have
public comment, we'll do it again.
MS. FILSON: Okay. The public comment person is Nicole
Ryan.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: She just wants to get home to
dinner.
MS. FILSON: Five minutes or three minutes?
MS. RYAN: Good evening, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: She only gets three minutes. You don't
need longer than three minutes?
MS. RYAN: No, no, and I appreciate you taking this out of
order.
Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, Nicole Ryan here
on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
And I'd like to discuss with you an item that you took action on
back on November 16th of2004. And at this meeting, during the
public comment portion, you were approached by a delegation of
representatives from the Marine Industries Association and from the
Charter Captains, and they were asking that you take action and
oppose the City of Naples' then proposed ordinance for slowing boat
speeds in portions of Naples Bay.
Page 267
- .~-------...,..-
May 24, 2005
At that meeting, even though there was no public notice and no
ability for others with, perhaps, differing viewpoints to give
testimony, you did go ahead and take a vote.
And looking back through the records on what that vote was --
and I handed out a copy of the record -- on page 251, the first motion
was by Commissioner Henning and seconded by Commissioner
Coletta, directing the county attorney to fight this issue at the city
council on behalf of the board, and if city council did go ahead and
approve the ordinance, to then draft a resolution to the Fish and
Wildlife Commission stating the county's opposition; however, that
wasn't voted on.
Another public speaker got up, and looking at the record, the
motion changed to incorporate his comments. The speaker was Alex
Walburn.
And the words which were incorporated were, I would ask that
you folks be named as an interested party in this and be noticed that
they, the FWC, are going to approve it, meaning the slow speed zones,
and then at that time make a motion, direct your staff to file for
administrative review on behalf of the interest of Collier County, and
that was made part of the motion and the second and voted on and
approved unanimously.
Well, the FWC did go ahead and approve the slow speed zones,
but I don't believe that this actually came back to the county to be
discussed and a motion made on that. And my reading of it is, the
November 16th motion did state clearly that after the speed zones
were approved by the FWC, it was supposed to come back at that time
for a motion and approval, and that was on page 252.
The county attorney's office went ahead and filed a lawsuit. We
don't believe that the appropriate direction and authorization was taken
to take this step. We believe it needed to come back through the
public process and it did not.
What we're asking is that this issue be discussed and determined
Page 268
May 24, 2005
the way that it should have been in November, place it on the agenda,
have it publicly noticed so it can be discussed.
We're asking that this item be placed on one of the June agendas,
and at that time you can discuss what part, if any, the county wants to
play in the opposition to the slow speed zones. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, the county
attorney and I spoke about this, and it's his clear understanding that
we're going to fight this to the death, and that's what he reads from the
minutes.
It was an agenda item. It was publicly noticed. So the -- you
know, when the board approves anything in the agenda, that's also
public notice, and I don't see why we want to rehash this when the
board has -- already gave clear direction that we're going to fight the
permit for slowing those speeds in Naples Bay, because that was a
clear sentiment on all the board. I'm done.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
MS. RYAN: Could I ask which specific agenda a lawsuit was
discussed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think what Nicole is getting at is
that this was brought up as a public comment after the meeting --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was in number nine, item
nIne.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, it wasn't. I think it was
brought up as a public comment at night, and we decided to make a
determination at that point in time, but this was not listed as an agenda
item.
So I think what we're getting at here is that we made a decision
but it wasn't on the record, it wasn't advertised, that we were going to
take this -- these steps, and there was only one individual or a couple
of individuals that were here on one side, but there was nobody on the
Page 269
May 24, 2005
other side because of the fact that it wasn't advertised at the time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Am I correct?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Mr. Klatzkow, who's been
involved with this issue, I think can make some clarification on the
Issue.
MR. KLATZKOW: For the record, JeffKlatzkow, county
attorney's office.
Two things. First we did review the record, and we believe that
this board did direct the county attorney's office to oppose the actions
from the Naples City Council, including the filing of this petition,
which we did.
The second issue really is that we were under a deadline to file
the petition, 21 days. And so by filing a petition doesn't necessarily
mean that, well, we're committed to the death.
Should this board at any time decide that it wants to instruct the
county attorney's office to cease its activities, it's free to do so.
But at this point it is my understanding, having read the record,
that this office was instructed to forcefully fight the Naples City
Council in this issue, and we will continue to do so unless instructed
otherwise.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I think it was, Jeff, a
couple weeks ago that the community was notified about the appeal of
this, having 21 days?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So we've got 14 days,
let's say 14 days. So if we take those 14 days away, you just have one
week, and we're not going to have a meeting in another week, and I'm
appalled at the Conservancy trying to back-door an issue when it fully
knows that the Board of Commissioners was opposed to this.
So by putting it on a future agenda, you lose the opportunity for
Page 270
"_~"'.'''__'.'M____
May 24, 2005
the appeal.
MR. KLATZKOW: We would have been foreclosed, that's
correct.
MS. RYAN: Well, I believe what I'm asking -- I still do have
questions about what -- the vote was taken; however, you filed. And
all I'm asking is, you can keep that challenge in place, but if it's
discussed in two weeks' times, three weeks' times and the commission
decides that they want to withdraw, you can withdraw the challenge at
any time, that's what I'm asking.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We also have the opportunity to
negotiate with the City of Naples --
MS. RYAN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- on the boat speed later on.
And, again, this is a terrible, terrible injustice of the public by trying to
put this on the agenda when it -- when it already was on the agenda,
the commissioners made a decision, and losing our opportunity to --
and sending a mixed signal to the state officials.
MS. RYAN: Can I just clarify? On what agenda was a lawsuit
on? Because I know that it was discussed to send a letter in
opposition to the City of Naples, but the actual lawsuit was under
public comment, and I'm not aware of a future agenda item since that
November 16th that actually had it as a publicly noticed agenda item,
and that's my concern on that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we had an item on nine,
the Board of Commissioners. It was advertised and discussed.
MR. KLATZKOW: I believe it was advertised, I believe it was
discussed, and I believe the board did instruct the county attorney's
office to do what the county attorney's office has done, and that is to
have filed on this petition.
Again, should the board later choose -- you know, decide not to
proceed, that's the board's prerogative.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't think that's the request, is asking
Page 271
0________
May 24, 2005
us to determine today whether or not we should withdraw the lawsuit.
If I understand the request, it is to have a regularly scheduled item on
the agenda, and that regularly scheduled item could be to reaffirm the
submission of the lawsuit.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I think that my concern is that the
attorney's office provide us a clear indication as to whether or not we
followed the proper procedure. If we have, I see no action that is
necessary. If we haven't, we can correct it by putting it on an agenda
and then reaffirming that decision.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So I think that should meet everybody's
requirements, because that's what you're asking for, right, is at least to
consider it on a public agenda --
MS. RYAN: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- because your contention is that there
was never a public agenda to reach a decision to file suit over this
particular issue.
MS. RYAN: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I -- I believe, reading the
minutes, that we did do this during public comment rather than doing
a regularly scheduled agenda item. But I have to defer to the attorney
to see if that is legally sufficient for the action that we have taken.
MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney Patrick White.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Before you answer that, you
have to go through the whole record of this. It was on a regular
agenda number nine. It wasn't public comment. This has been in.
The citizens came in and wanted to clarify what the board's action
was. That's what the public comments was.
And you are absolutely right, we had each -- anyone of us have
the ability to put this on a future agenda, and -- but I think that all the
information ought to be given by the county attorney's office if a
Page 272
._.,._~
May 24, 2005
commissioner wishes to do so.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's what I'm trying to get from
the county attorney. I want to get a clear indication as to whether or
not --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we need to settle this --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- we have legal sufficiency.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we need to settle this now
instead of just a correspondence to the Conservancy on the action that
the board has done? We probably talked about this three times.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'd be happy to prepare a letter for the
Conservancy or to the commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Saying what?
MR. KLA TZKOW: Showing exactly the course of action that
the board had taken and how this was justified, filing the petition.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The legal sufficiency issue?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Without it being advertised on the
agenda as somebody that just walked in, and not giving proper notice
saying that this should be brought up on an upcoming agenda in the
way that we did this?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you don't mind, Commissioner Fiala, I
think you're right. Let's -- I'm going to make a motion. Can I make a
motion?
MR. WHITE: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This hasn't been adv -- this hasn't been
advertised.
MR. WHITE: Well, there's no requirement, Commissioners, that
with respect to any action that you may choose to take by motion, that
it must be advertised unless there's either a local or a state law that so
requires it, and there is no such law that I'm aware of.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can I get a sense of the commission then
Page 273
May 24, 2005
as to whether or not there are enough commissioners to bring this
back, put it on an agenda, and then we can affirm or deny the decision
to sue? And that's all we --
MR. WHITE: That's within your prerogative.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you still feel strongly about -- three or
more commissioners who feel strongly about a suit, then it's done. If
not, you can always withdraw it.
Would that -- are there enough people on this board to make that
decision, or who will support that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala had her --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I thought you were just
asking for anybody.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I am now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, why don't we, again,
get some historical information, and anybody can bring it back and put
it on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we're getting off -- I think
we're getting off the track here. I think what we're -- what we're saying
is that the original motion, even though there's a lawsuit in place, that's
fine. What we're saying is, did we go through the proper channels at
the point that we voted on this on November the 16th, 2004, as we
closed the commission meeting and this was brought before us --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We did it before that.
Commissioner, you're not saying, you're asking, first of all. The
second thing is, we had it on a previous agenda before the public
presents. It was on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The same day?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. It was on the agenda on the
previous -- previous date. No, October 12th. That is the exact date
Page 274
----~._-,.-,,-
. ---,-..
May 24, 2005
when the Board of Commissioners took action.
MS. RYAN: To oppose, not to sue. I think that's the concern.
To send a letter of opposition--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
MS. RYAN: -- in the Conservancy's mind is different than
deciding to file a lawsuit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: A technicality is what we're
looking at.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, and without having all the
information, it's just all hearsay, so let's -- you know, I don't have a
problem with having historical information from our counsel.
MR. KLATZKOW: We'd be happy to supply either a
correspondence to the Conservancy or a memo to the BCC, whichever
your preference. We believe it was appropriate action we took based
on the record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I would like to have you do that,
prepare a legal opinion as to the legal sufficiency of that particular
decision and then present it to us, and then if anyone of us want to
have it on agenda for public discussion, we can do that, okay?
MR. KLATZKOW: Will be done.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, with the actual time frame--
actually, we've got the minutes at that point in time, and to see if there
was any correlation between opposing and the lawsuit as it was stated
on November the 16th, 2004.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Good. Is there sufficient -- do I
see three nods? Okay. All right. We're okay.
MS. RYAN: Thank you very much. And that was our concern,
that it may have been legally sufficient, but is that how we want to run
government in deciding to get into a lawsuit during public comment,
so thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thanks. Thank you very much.
Page 275
..-....-,--.--..-
May 24, 2005
We're ready to adjourn now, I think.
MR. MUDD: No, sir. We're just getting started.
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2005-24: ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE
HERITAGE BAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
(CDD) PURSUANT TO SECTION 190.005, FLORIDA STATUTES
- ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS
The next item is 8B, sir. This item was continued from the May
10th, 2005, BCC meeting. Public hearing to consider adoption of an
ordinance establishing the Heritage Bay Community Development
District, CDD, pursuant to section 190.005 of Florida Statutes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We don't have to swear anybody
in on this one, huh?
MR. WHITE: It's a public hearing, and you're free to either have
a presentation by the petitioner or not. Mr. Van Assenderp is present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll let Mr. Van Assenderp make his
presentation here. He's promised me he can do it in three minutes or
less.
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: We would be -- Mr. Chairman and
members, we would accept a 3-2 vote, we'd be very happy with a 4-1
vote, and we'd be ecstatic with a 5-0 vote. And your staff has done a
fine report. Comprehensive, there's no opposition. This item was
delayed once to work out some ancillary development issues just to
prevent any problems, and we believe we merit and respectfully
request a favorable vote on establishment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And does staff have a presentation for
us? What's the staffs recommendation?
MR. COHEN: For the record, Randy Cohen, comprehensive
planning. Staff recommends approval of the community development
Page 276
~~--'."-"-'_.-
May 24, 2005
district.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Are there any questions? Yes,
there are a lot of questions. Who was first?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Don't we already have a CDD in
Heritage Bay?
MR. COHEN: Yes, sir, but that's for the other portion known as
the quarry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So it's two different --
MR. COHEN: There's two different property owners.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Two different property owners
and they're not doing the same thing?
MR. COHEN: No, sir. Two different property owners, two
separate community development districts.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just must say on the record,
I'm never in favor of CDDs. It's not you, it's not them. I'm never in
favor because I feel the residents who then buy in have no voice on
that until the six years has elapsed. And I've only voted for one and
that was one they put a resident on was -- as soon as they began
selling homes, there was a resident put on there to speak up for the
residents. Just on the record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In the same line, what is your
projected cost for each individual that's going to buy into this project?
And what's the time line that they're going to be obligated to fulfill
that commitment?
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: Commissioner Halas, the timeline is
approximately a phasing of about three or four years for $47 million
of infrastructure. How that actually works out for the individual parcel
owner over a 20- or 30-year bond amortization would be the duty of
Page 277
May 24, 2005
this government board of supervisors if you all establish the board,
and then it must report to you at least annually plus a host of other
reports.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do the future homeowners -- are
they informed in regards to what obligations they are buying into?
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: Yes, they are, very much so.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And at that point in time, are they
told what the cost is going to be, or is this a --
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: Orally and in writing. Sorry,
Commissioner, I interrupted your question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And is this time frame of when
they first buy in, does this mean that the price will go down or will it
escalate?
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: The purchased unit does not alter the
price. The bond issue does not alter the price. The marketplace
determines the price of the unit, but there is a series, as I've outlined
before for you all's records of very, very strong, bold disclosures to all
the purchasers, which does not exist when someone buys in a city or a
county. The host of disclosures is just overwhelming.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, what I'm trying to get at--
and I just need some clarification, because we seem to be hit with
more and more of these CDDs as we have developments come out,
and I'm just trying to figure out -- because this is a tax that is imposed
on those citizens that decide to live in this community, and in some
cases, I think there's been -- where they've been given a flat rate of
what they thought they were going to be paid, and then as you closed
out the development, all of a sudden we found out there were some
hidden costs or something else that all of a sudden showed up at the
point when this was being turned over from the developer to its
citizens, and then there was additional charges.
My question is, is that anytime in the -- the life of this, does the
price go down or does it keep continually escalating?
Page 278
._,......_~._-".._-"._--
, ~_...-_._,---~.~......_--~--'-_..
May 24, 2005
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: Commissioner Halas and members,
the purchase price of a unit one would buy in a development that you
approve that is subject to a district is a function of only, and only, and
only, of the marketplace.
It would be very misleading for anyone to say that because of --
the district has levied assessments to payoff bonds, that automatically
the unit price will be less. The difference is, and the reason the
Florida Association of Counties worked so strong with us in 1980
when we wrote this law to get it passed as a tool for county
commissions, is your very good point about the disclosure.
This way you have a government spyglass on what's being done
on whether that district is following the requirements of your
development order, and you have mandated disclosure to the
purchasers, which does not exist when people buy homes that are not
in a district. But the purchase price is strictly and only a function of
the marketplace. It would be whatever the price is with or without a
district.
MR. WHITE: I believe though, Mr. Chairman, that the question
-- and, perhaps, Mr. Van Assenderp, you can address this more
precisely, was to the actual special assessments that may be derived
from the infrastructure costs that are either bonded or taxed and
whether those would remain the same, increase, or decrease over time.
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: Thank you. That's -- Mr. White,
that's why I asked if you were talking about the unit price.
The special assessments are different than taxes, and that's why
this district does not levy taxes. That's another good thing. There is
some -- there's the power to levy taxes if certain things occur, and as
the years down the road -- and no district I've ever represented has
ever levied taxes.
These are not taxes. And the reason that's important and not just
semantics is that these are special assessments which means the law
must require the district to show whether the property owner has a
Page 279
--._~-._~
May 24, 2005
right and a duty to reimburse the government, in that case the district,
for a host of special benefits to the property.
And you can't do that with a property tax. You can do that with a
special assessment. It's a very democratic process. Once that's done,
once that's done, then that is the process, no matter how many
residents move in, because the determination is the special benefits,
like added use of the property, safety, and issuing things unique to
each parcel of property, regardless of what the unit price is. It's not
based on the unit price or value.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand that. It's a fixed price.
So let's say hypothetically I buy into your CDD, and every year I'm
assessed $3,600, okay. That's to pay for the infrastructure. As--
whether you've got 3,400 homes there or whether you've got three
homes there; am I correct?
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And so that as you build out
and you find out that you're very close to the assessed value that you
bought the bonds at, there may be a point in time where the assessed
value, instead of $3,600 may now be $3,000, or is that not the case?
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: That's not the case. We have an
expert, Mr. Ward, if you want to discuss that a little bit more, who is a
manager of districts and very familiar with the workings of those.
But the answer to your question is, the burden is on the land if
there is a showing of special benefit to the land that benefits the
landowner as well. And when the amortization is over, then the land
is free of any burden. But between the initial levy and the payoff of
the bonds, the amount is the same unless there is a refunding of the
bonds.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Suppose you don't have a
build-out and you made the assessment to each of the property owners
of $3,600 based on 3,400 individuals, homes, okay. So you only have
a build-out of, let's say, 3,000 homes. Then does the assessment rate
Page 280
----~,-------~.....~-;~"..-
May 24, 2005
go up for those other -- that -- the 400 that were unbuildable?
MR. WARD: No, Commissioner, it does not. Once we levy the
assessment and put a specific amount of debt on a specific unit,
irrespective of what happens with the balance of the property, that
assessment can never change at all, so it will remain the same. Either
the developer will end up picking up that difference in the cost or
ultimately the bondholder who purchases these bonds will pick up that
ultimate cost.
But in no uncertain circumstances will the -- will a resident who
moves into a district pick up the cost related to the difference between
3,000 units and 3,600 units, in your case.
MR. WHITE: And the reason for that, Commissioner Halas, is
because there's a certain benefit that is derived by each unit that has a
specific value, and it's that benefit that the assessment is assessed for.
So there has to be that relationship between the two, and it has
nothing really to do with the percentage build-out or sales of
individual units. It has to do with the direct relationship of a benefit to
that individual unit, and that's why it's capped at that amount.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. If I could, tell me if I'm
wrong on this. If you had a base price for a house, now the choice that
you could have gone is to put the infrastructure in and include that
price in the house, which means that those units would cost X number
of dollars more and the financing would have to be done from the
bank end; is that correct?
MR. WARD: Yes. For the record, since I didn't state it before,
my name is Jim Ward. I'm the vice-president with Southern Tran (sic)
Services.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, the choice is fairly simple,
either they pay for it in the beginning, and maybe some people might
be squeezed out of buying the house, or it's financed by a lower
interest bond over a number of years and it stays with the property. So
Page 281
---"'-"--~--'-'-
".. ......-.------,..-
May 24, 2005
in other words, when the owner sells the house in that 25- to 30-year
period -- is it 30 years, you said for the bond?
MR. WARD: Thirty years, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So ifhe sells it, the
remainder of the cost stays with the house, and there's a disclosure that
takes place on the whole thing. The price to get into the house should
be less, because you only charge the actual cost of what it's going to
be for the infrastructure improvements; is that correct?
MR. WARD: That is correct, sir. In all instances your
statements are correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I'm still trying to find out
what's evil here.
MR. WARD: I'm not aware of an evil --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's not evil, it's just the idea that
you have, for instance, hypothetically, you have the $3,600 that you
owe the CDD, plus you have the taxes that are due to the county, plus
the school board tax.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Basically, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So a CDD basically is another
taxing unit on top of the existing taxing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I don't know if you call it
a taxing unit. You're either going to pay for the infrastructure in the
price of the house or you're going to pay it in increments over a
30-year period.
To me it sounds like a wonderful plan to be able to get into
something for less money than it would normally be. I'm sure you're
not going to be building affordable houses. But for the most part,
what you are going to be building, there's going to be a price cap as far
as what people can afford.
MR. WARD: Exactly, and--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And be it 300,000 or $400,000,
people are just barely going to make it getting into it, and this may be
Page 282
0" .. .. . ..__-.-....,..-
May 24, 2005
the reason some upper middle-class people, that glitch group that
we're talking --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Gap.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Gap.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Gap housing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not glitch. Oh, no. Glitch is
what we had when we were doing -- never mind.
But I feel very comfortable with it myself. I just wanted to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's not that I don't feel
comfortable, I just wanted to get a full understanding of what we were
about to do here, because we have a lot of these that are coming before
the board, and I just want to get a good clarification of exactly what is
entailed in regards to the taxpayers of the county, as they move into
these, that they also -- not only do they pay county tax, but they also
have to pay for the infrastructure of this CDD.
MR. WARD: Yes, sir. And with full disclosure required in the
statute, I think everyone will know before they purchase their homes
what those assessments will be.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioners Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. The thing is, in here it says,
assessment ad valorem taxation, issuance of bonds. So in other words,
you know, like I said, the house sells for whatever the market will
bear.
This is just -- you know, if you -- you get a road with this or you
get a road if you don't have one. I mean, you're going to have to have
a road to get in there. This way, people buy and they're not saving any
money buying it this way, but now they've got something to pay every
year, every month, for the rest of the time.
And it says here, the authority to exercise special powers in
accordance with so and so section of Florida Statute without question,
and so that makes me a little bit nervous, and that's why I feel there
should be representation from residents.
Page 283
--..---
May 24, 2005
And I know of one particular instance where they lined a pond,
and it cost them $465,000. Lo and behold, that pond doesn't happen to
be within that CDD. It was like right on the other side, but it was a
good way for the developer to tuck that in. Nobody even knew it until
many years later, then they had to sue to get the money back, had to
hire the attorney and everything. You're familiar with that.
MR. WARD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So these are the things I'm
concerned about. That's why I want representation from the residents
right away.
And the last thing I have is a question. How -- if I own the
property already, why do you need the power for eminent domain?
MR. WARD: Well, I'll let the learned attorney answer that
question.
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: When a facility needs property and it
is owned -- the property's owned by a developer or later someone who
moves in for a switching station or something of that type, and as --
the same with the county commission or city commission, then the
district would exercise eminent domain power and would have to go
through all the procedures that the county has to go through when it
takes property from people --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you already own the property.
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: -- for public purposes. No, the district
is not the developer. They're two different things here. The district is
a local government, like you are, but we have a safeguard. It can't
exercise that eminent domain power outside of its boundaries unless
you authorize it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The more I hear about this, the
more I have concerns. The local government power that you're
referring to, the members of it don't live in -- local. They live on the
east coast, they live in Fort Myers, they don't live -- they live in
Page 284
--,"---,.-
May 24, 2005
LaBelle.
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: That's correct, Commissioner, and the
reason that's correct is it's raw land. There's no one who lives there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well--
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: And then the purpose is to let this
district government, subject to your development requirements, put in
the infrastructure, then people come.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I doubt that they're going to
live with (sic) it.
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: Sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I really doubt they're going to
live within the community.
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: They have to once the law changes it
over to qualified --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The second statement that was
made about the infrastructure before or after, whether you have a
CDD or not, the bottom line is, it's going to be market rate. Whatever
the market will bear is what the houses are going to sell for.
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: That's what I said, and I agree 100
percent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I know, but Mr. Ward said
differently. So I would like to move on with the agenda item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You got a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to deny.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: Before -- Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion to deny by
Commissioner Henning, and second by Commissioner Fiala.
Is there further discussion?
Okay. Mr. Van Assenderp?
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
members. This process is -- in fact, one of the first counties ever to
Page 285
May 24, 2005
get into this process is this county.
All of the questions you raised have been raised by the Florida
legislature. You must show with specificity if you're going to deny
something, much more specificity than a few summaries of the law
that -- or needed a little bit more explanation, we just don't have time
to, based on some of the comments and questions.
This district is a concurrency mechanism tool for this county and
for the future and existing landowners. It is a good thing, and you
don't have the basis -- I think Mr. White would tell you -- you have
nothing in the record. The denial must be with specificity.
You have a comprehensive staff report, you have a
recommendation from the staff, you have no opposition, you have a
law. You are a charter home rule county, or home rule that can't do
anything inconsistent with the law. There is no basis for denial here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County attorney?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Here's your specificity, if the
chairman so desires.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Stated on the record that the
savings would be up front of the residents. It doesn't state it within the
document before the Board of Commissioners, so it's just --
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: Well, let me respond to that, please,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's just hearsay.
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: The savings -- most of the time, I will
dare say, that if a district is established, sometimes it does such a good
job with the high policy -- sustained quality of the infrastructure that
the unit prices are even higher. There's no correlation there. It is a --
strictly a marketplace.
But what Commissioner Coletta was talking about is that the
district can actually disclose otherwise hidden costs to the consumers.
This is one of the most consumer-protection resident-protection
Page 286
,..- -.---"--""-
May 24, 2005
landowner-protection mechanisms there is.
You're rehashing on a relatively short notice and uninformed
basis of stuff that, if you took the time, we could inform you and your
staff could inform you, because I know how busy you all are,
decisions that were made by the Florida legislature with the
consultation and support of the Florida Association of Counties. The
law actually states, this is a tool for the county.
Now, you have the political right to deny, of course, and I respect
your decisions. But I would like very much to request that we either
temporarily postpone -- I think there's some misconceptions here that
need to be resolved, and it's unfair to this landowner who has already
postponed once, to work out development orders.
This is a political decision, this is a political body here, and may
we have some time -- I would rather do that than have any kind of a
negative vote -- until you all are more informed and we're informed
about your concerns.
And then if that's the way you want it, then you're sending a
message that community development districts will no longer be
allowed. There's no difference between this one and any other item
before or later on community development districts. That would be a
little bit unfortunate.
May I ask Mr. Russell Smith, who's the landowner, who's been
very, very patient with all this, also to talk?
MR. SMITH: My name is Russell Smith. I represent Lennar
Communities, the developer of the project. And the only reason I
asked to come up here is, if it would assuage any of your concerns, we
would be more than willing to offer one seat to one of the first
residents of the community to represent the interests of -- you know,
of the residents of the community as soon as the community starts to
develop without regard to the six-year requirement in the statute, so if
that is at all helpful.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
Page 287
May 24, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to remove my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I make a motion for
approval based upon the fact that we're going to allow one position in
the community, but the only thing is the time element. When would
that happen?
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: As soon as five move in.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, move in or purchase,
because I mean, that might be --
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: Well, these are things to be worked
out. We'll do whatever the commission wants, but I understand Mrs.
Fiala's proposal was, when five residents move into the property, you
can make them -- you can require that they be owners as well. These
are things that would have to be worked out. This should not be a
condition of your ordinance, but it would be the agreement that you
already heard made by the developer --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand.
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: -- between the developer/land owner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think I'd be more comfortable
if those five residents were owners rather than actual residents,
because the delay of time there may cost them even more. That will
be a condition of my motion.
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: No problem. That'd be great.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But that's one of the five then--
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- would be selected or --
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: Elected by the board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- elected to be on that board
immediately so that then they still have a few years on that board to
help make some of these decisions.
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So Commissioner Coletta has made a
Page 288
^-_._.~
May 24, 2005
motion for approval with the understanding that an agreement will be
worked out to permit a homeowner --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Resident.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- resident representative on the board
within the period of time when five persons purchase property.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, purchase property. Not a
resident per se because the people that are going to be there now aren't
residents, they're just owners. So it would be an equal footing for that.
In other words, if we got five owners, at that point in time they meet,
and they select one of them to be a representative.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And I'll second that then.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala has seconded.
Any further -- I'm going to closing the public hearing.
Any further discussion by commissioners?
(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.
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: Mr. Chairman and members, thank
you. I know you've had a tough day. I respect and thank all five of
you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Item #10C
Page 289
-._---.-,.,._.__._-"-,.,._-~~.._---.,-~-.
-...~~
May 24, 2005
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF AN
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE PARKLANDS COLLIER
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (CDD) PURSUANT
TO SECTION 190.005, FLORIDA STATUTES - MOTION TO
CONTINUE INDEPINITEL Y - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is 8C. It's a public
hearing to consider adoption of an ordinance establishing the
Parklands Collier Community Development District pursuant to
section 190.005 of the Florida Statutes.
MR. FARQUHAR: Good evening. John Farquhar with the firm
of Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster, and Russell representing the
petitioner.
We would comment that we are in agreement with staff report.
We would also make the same stipulation as was added to the last
motion. In fact, we had already suggested that in a prior letter that our
co-counsel sent, and we'd be happy to answer any other questions that
you have. Otherwise, we would defer to the staff report. And if there's
any other questions or issues, we'd be happy to answer them. And my
client -- two of my client's representatives are here to speak if you
have any questions about details regarding --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does staffhave a report, Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: No, sir, besides what's written.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nothing other than what's in the
executive summary.
Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's stated, or I received an
e-mail, this CDD will assist to build, construct, Logan Boulevard from
its terminus at Immokalee Road to Bonita Beach Road?
MR. FARQUHAR: Yes, at least to the property line, the
developer has an obligation to build to Bonita Beach Road. I'm not
sure whether the CDD will be building it from the property -- from the
Page 290
--------..-
May 24, 2005
Collier County/Lee County line to Bonita Beach Road or whether that
will be built directly by the developer. But there is an obligation of
the developer, and the obligation would be at least for the part in
Collier County assumed by the CDD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's my understanding through
the DO and the DRI that they're to construct from Immokalee Road to
Bonita Beach Road.
MR. FARQUHAR: Actually it's the -- Logan Boulevard
Extension is already constructed somewhat north of that -- north of
Immokalee Road at this point in time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, but not to the place where they
had agreed upon?
MR. FARQUHAR: We've agreed to construct from the -- and
the PUD provides that the developer successors assigned do hereby
agree to construct Logan Boulevard Extension from its present
terminus at 0 Ide Cypress PUD north of Immokalee Road, north to and
through the subject Parklands PUD/DRI terminating at Bonita Beach
Road.
The only thing that we're waiting for presently is our Corps of
Engineers permit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Waiting for your Corps of
Engineers permit to further continue on the first phase?
MR. FARQUHAR: We've completed a first phase, and to
continue further, we have to have a Corps of Engineers permit before
we can continue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you're not completed with
the first phase. You're completed with -_
MR. FARQUHAR: We're completed with part of the first phase.
We can't complete the rest of the first phase until we have a Corps of
Engineers permit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
Page 291
,..---"--
May 24, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does the first phase of this road,
does it meet the standards of the county in regards to drainage and
width and so on? Because this is going to be turned over to the county,
isn't it, eventually?
MR. FARQUHAR: Yes. It is going to be built -- it is being built
to county standards. If you want more specifics, I can have one of my
clients speak on it in more detail. But yes, it has to be built to county
standards.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So maybe Norm Feder -- this first
portion has been built, hasn't it? I'll wait for Norm to come forward
here.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, for the record, Norman Feder,
transportation administrator. The first three-quarters of a mile has
been built. They're building the road under right-of-way use permit
from the county. The county owns the right-of-way, and we've
acquired it. They're required to provide certification and CEI, and
then later they're going to have to provide soil for testings and other
issues to confirm that they've built fully to county standards.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And are they -- are they also in
agreement with our standards as far as water retention?
MR. FEDER: Yes. We're requiring them to address fully those
issues. They're in the design plans, and then they're going to use this
CEI that they're working with, they're going to certify that they built
to the standards. And as I said, we'll require them to go back and do
some core samples and other issues to confirm that before we'll accept
the final product.
As we understand it, their issue now is waiting on the Corps of
Engineers permits. And I'll let them speak to that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is the Corps of Engineers permits,
do you know -- maybe I'll have to ask the petitioner, but are the Corps
of Engineers permits being asked for in regards to road building, or
are the Corps of Engineers permits being asked for in regards to the
Page 292
May 24, 2005
whole development of --
MR. FEDER: I'll defer to the applicant on that.
MR. FARRAR: For the record, Brian Farrar with the Ronto
Group. It includes the entire development and the roads as a
cumulative package. That's how you have to submit to the Army
Corps of Engineers.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What is your best guess for the
time frame in which this road will be completed all the way to Bonita
Beach Road?
MR. FARRAR: I think our schedule, we had anticipated the end
of '09 in our original PUD time frame, Exhibit C of the PUD report.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's only a two-lane
highway, is that correct, two-lane --
MR. FARRAR: That's a two-lane -- two-lane section, that's
correct, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's going to have sidewalks,
all the other --
MR. FARRAR: That is correct. The approved cross-section was
approved by the Collier County Transportation Department, and we're
in agreement with that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. We got a -- Mr. Farrar?
MR. FARRAR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We got a note here in front of us --
we received a note, excuse my poor English -- that said that the GL
Homes permit is many months ahead of yours, and the GL Homes
permit provided this link adjacent to the Terafina property, and they
were saying that you would be able to use this permit to build this
road. Is that -- is that true?
Ronto can begin the construction of the mile-long section across
the Terafina frontage, and GL Homes can perform the improvements
Page 293
-_._.._---~,.--._.~,~
May 24, 2005
committed to the adjoining communities.
MR. FARRAR: Weare prepared to construct Logan Boulevard
when our permits are approved. I can't make any assertations (sic) as
to whether theirs may be earlier than ours. I do not know that fact.
And I think we'd be well within our rights of the PUD to maintain that
schedule and maintain those rights that are already vested.
F or us to move forward, hopefully on a -- if they're ahead of us, I
wish them great success. Unfortunately, we have moved forward with
this permit application with the Army Corps of Engineers as one
contiguous proj ect. For us to go back and change things now or to ask
for things to be changed, I think there'd be risk involved, and we're not
willing to take that risk, frankly. We are willing to go through and
live up to our expectations as best we can with the permits when we
receive them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No presentation by staff. We have six--
MS. FILSON: Five.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- five public speakers. Okay.
MS. FILSON: John Farquhar?
MR. FARQUHAR: I already spoke.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Steve Nellis. He'll be followed by James Kirk.
MR. NELLIS: Yeah. My name is Steve Nellis. I'm the president
of the Olde Cypress Homeowners' Association Council.
There have been several commitments made to us --
Commissioner Henning, I'm sure, is familiar with most of these --
primarily from GL Homes, but it's all contingent upon this road.
So we're just quite concerned that the road be built from the
northern -- current northern terminus on to the north as these folks
have indicated they would do, and we want to make certain that they
do what they said they were going to do. Thank you.
Page 294
-_._,._.~,"...'.---...-.
May 24, 2005
MS. FILSON: James Kirk. He'll be followed by John
Wooldridge.
MR. KIRK: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name's James
Kirk, and I'm the vice-president of the Long Shore Lake Residents'
Association. I'm here today because Ronto Developments for
Parklands entered into an agreement with the county with Olde
Cypress, Quail Creek, GL Homes, and us, Long Shore, that they
would build the road from Bonita Beach to Immokalee Road, or from
Immokalee to Bonita Beach, and they made this commitment in order
to obtained the Parklands DRI extension.
This commitment allowed GL Homes, who is building Terafina,
to enter into agreements with the county and with our communities.
Their agreement was that they will install landscape
improvements along this road. We had a lot of negotiations, the
communities did, with Terafina, GL Homes, regarding this, and came
to an agreement because they were giving us assurance that we will be
buffered by these improvements.
Long Shore Lake, in turn, agreed with the county that we would
maintain the landscape along our border. A couple of months ago we
were told by GL Homes that Ronto had officially informed them they
would not construct the first link of the road until such time as they
obtained the Army Corps permit to the entire road and their
development.
GL Homes has their Army Corps permit, which includes the first
link of the road. They informed us that they approached Ronto and
asked that that section be built or that they build it and Ronto pay for
it.
Our agreements with GL are specific in that if they have to build
the road at their cost, we are not going to get our landscaping.
We, the communities involved, have no power or say in this
matter between them. All we can do is appeal to you, our elected
representatives, to help us in this manner.
Page 295
._--"-~
May 24, 2005
Long Shore Lake community is asking that you require Ronto
live up to their agreement and build Logan Road or pay GL to build it,
and that they be given a timetable in which it be completed.
Thank you very much for your time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: John Wooldridge.
MR. WOOLDRIDGE: I'm John Wooldridge, and I'm the
president of the Quail Creek Property Owners' Association, and I
won't waste your time with repeating what Jim had to say. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Mr. Wooldridge.
MS. FILSON: He'll be followed by Rick Elsner.
MR. ELSNER: For the record, I am Rick Elsner, vice-president
of GL Homes.
To clear something up first, GL Homes does not have their Corps
permit yet. Weare hopefully close to getting that permit. We're
working on it daily trying to secure it.
As was stated, when Ronto came here to extend their DRI, they
were given an ordinance with a construction schedule for Logan
Boulevard.
The portion that we're here talking about is the section from the
entrance to Olde Cypress to the north side of Terafina, and in that
phasing schedule, it has -- excuse me -- a completion date of spring of
2005.
Well, it's spring of2005. Granted, the Corps permit has not been
issued on our property, so there is a hurdle that they couldn't
overcome to build that section. But today we're here trying to ask the
county to put another construction schedule in place for them.
Right now you have a section of Logan sitting out there that is
south of our property on the Olde Cypress community -- it's in the
county right-of-way -- that has been built, but yet there is no drainage
connected to that road.
We met with Ronto several times on this yet there is nothing
Page 296
---'-"'--
May 24, 2005
being done with the county, Olde Cypress, or anybody involved to
resolve the issue with the drainage on that section of roadway. So I
don't know what they're waiting for to resolve it. They said it's built.
It's not built. I don't know what considered built is. Yeah, there's
asphalt out there that when it rains, it floods.
So we're here asking that the county step in here and look at this
phasing schedule for Logan Boulevard that -- well, let me say this,
too. The completion of the entire roadway was 2008, fall of 2008. I
have a feeling they're going to come back asking for some relief on
that, too, based on the delays of the Corps permit, but I'm more
concerned about us living up to our obligations of our surrounding
communities that we made based on the commitment of Ronto.
But yet right now, if it was spring of2005, we are perfectly okay
with that. We've been trying to work with Ronto to come up with the
schedule ourselves, but yet there's been no commitment on their part.
They're asking for the CDD to be approved, which you just heard
right now will include funding for this section of roadway, so it's only
appropriate that we tie them down. So that's all I have to say.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. ELSNER: Appreciate your time. Sorry it's so late.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's all right. We've been late all day.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ah, I see. Okay.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm going to ask the commissioner
in this district if he can enlighten us in regards to the commitments
that were made so that we can tie all this together. I think it's very
important.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner, first of all,
I just heard that the permit for the -- to finish the first phase is
Terafina's permit. And in order to do that -- because it is on their
property .
Page 297
May 24, 2005
MR. FARRAR: But that's county right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But in your permit you
have the construction -- to allow the construction of the Logan Road,
right?
MR. ELSNER: That's absolutely correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Commissioner, I met
with Brian Farrar from Ronto, along with Don Scott, to try to speed up
this process because of the concerns of the residents wanting those
commitments to be done.
Mr. Farrar said he's waiting for his permit to build that section,
and, in fact, what I offered myself is to go to the Corps of Engineers to
assist him to speed that up so he can build the road, but yet now I
understand that it's really Terafina or GL Homes' permit that we're
waiting for.
And I met with Brian Stock, who is still in control of Olde
Cypress, just the other day and asked, you know, has anybody
contacted you for drainage on this, and he says no, nobody has
contacted me whatsoever.
MR. FARRAR: Commissioner Henning, can I --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm a little concerned --
MR. FARRAR: Sure. I think -- I think there has been some
confusion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess I'm done.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, you're not. I think you've got
some more. Hold on. Let him finish up. I'd like to hear the story.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I guess I'm concerned about
commitments. And, boy, I was really blind-sided by trying to help
somebody out, and actually all I did is be helping him get his
development permit through the U.S. Corps of Engineers.
Because I went to the Corps of Engineers on Vanderbilt Beach
Road trying to speed that up, and which we did, and I was really
blind-sided by some of the comments and representation from Ronto.
Page 298
--_.-._.._-...._-...__._.__._~--,--"--~
- ""~._-
'"-----,..-
May 24, 2005
And I'm really concerned about any further action we try to assist
Ronto in what they're asking.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Commissioner Henning,
it's your district. I'm going to ask you, would it be appropriate to ask
for this to be continued to September?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it would be more
appropriate to ask to either approve with conditions that they're going
to build this road or continue it until the road is built. You know, the
commitment to -- from Ronto in their DRI is to build the road. It's not
contingent upon this CDD.
And if you remember that, this gentleman got up here and says,
we're committed to going down and building a road, Commissioners,
and yet, I have seen no action. In fact, I find just the opposite, which
I'm really surprised, Brian.
MR. FARRAR: If I may, Commissioner Henning. I think there
has been some assertations (sic) made today that are inaccurate. And
yes, in fact, our Army Corps permit does include the right-of-way in
front of Terafina.
When Terafina, GL Homes, went back and modified their
application, they're overlapping on top of that. And quite frankly,
there are two applications which include this right-of-way area within
the front of Terafina, and that's the honest truth.
The fact of the matter also is, their improvements that Rick is
talking about is for the -- only a half mile in front of their proj ect. We
fully intend to live up to all of our commitments we have made in the
past, and I stand here today to reaffirm that.
When we go through this commitment, we believe it, we will do
it. We have inaction on the 0 Ide Cypress portion for the drainage, for
instance, but we have had numerous meetings with the Assistant
County Manager (sic) Joe Schmitt and many other county staff.
So we stand here today fully ready and willing to continue this
Page 299
"...".~....-,-..~-"-""~-,.",,,-,,,",""--
-.'--.----
May 24, 2005
process. If Rick would like to stand here and make somewhat
disingenuous statements in front of the commission, I think that's
unfortunate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it should have been said
a long time ago.
MR. FARRAR: We stand here today committed to continue the
process. As I have told you before Commissioner Henning, and I say
it here today, we will, in fact, continue to permit this road, and we will
construct this road when we receive our permits.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. It says -- you say when you
receive these permits, although you have the ability to construct the
road, even if you pay and our -- what is your -- I'm sorry.
MR. ELSNER: It's Rick Elsner with GL Homes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: RL -- GL Homes, excuse me. GL
Homes said they would construct it for you, all you have to do is pay
it.
MR. FARRAR: I'm not asking for anybody to do any favors for
me. I've made a commitment to build the road, and I plan on building
that road.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you didn't even put drainage in
your -- in the first part that you --
MR. FARRAR: We don't have the right to enter that property for
drainage connections. The original community, Olde Cypress, was to
have an outfall structure to the property line, which is the
right-of-way, which was never constructed.
We do not have the right and/or the county's ability to enter that
property and continue with drainage work outside the scope of our
right-of-way permit, and that's why we have not continued outside of
the right-of-way.
Our right-of-way is very specific. That's the -- and that's the -- if
you would like to have Don Scott come up and talk about it, we can
Page 300
. -^,..._-'"--....-
May 24, 2005
do that. But it's very specific.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I think it would be
damning if Don Scott came up here and talked about it, because things
that you said to Don Scott and I are not exactly true. I'm not done.
MR. FARRAR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that we know the
integrity of Stock Development who is still in control of Olde
Cypress. He's definitely a community business, and he has no contact
from this party about this interconnection for drainage.
MR. FARRAR: Commissioner Henning --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what do you want to do --
MR. FARRAR: As of lately, we may not have contacted him
because there's -- as we wait for this Corps permit to be approved,
there's no need to go through and remobilize construction two or three
times.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. FARRAR: You know, and we understand--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're already there, okay?
MR. FARRAR: We were there a year ago.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're already there.
Correct, and --
MR. FARRAR: And I --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you don't need a Corps
permit to finish up the section that is already started. So what do you
want to do, do you want to continue this until you finish the road or do
you want to put conditions on this -- on this CDD that you're going to
build the road in a certain time?
MR. FARRAR: Commissioner Henning, if you would like me to
go through and stand down on this CDD hearing today until I have
that first segment of the road constructed, which is the segment from
the 0 Ide Cypress entrance to the present terminus, which is at the
section line for section eight, I believe, I'd be more than happy to stand
Page 301
- ."'0,__..__---...--
May 24, 2005
down and do that today because we want to live up to our
commitments, my commitment to you as stands, and we will continue
to stand by those commitments.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How about -- I'm --
Commissioner, I'm ready to make a motion that we put into the CDD
that Ronto will construct the first phase, complete the first phase of
Logan Boulevard and continue under their DO to phase in Logan
Boulevard the rest of the way when either the -- GL Homes or
Terafina receives the Corps of Engineers Permit and--
MR. ELSNER: Whichever occurs first.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- whichever occurs first, and
also I think that it is important that we give them a certain time, date
certain, they finish the first part that they already started, which they
have the ability to finish, and I think it's more than appropriate to do
that within three months.
MR. ELSNER: Can I just add, too, I like the direction, for GL
Homes' sake, and the surrounding neighbors also. Two other things.
We've met with Brian several times with our requirement putting turn
lanes out on Logan Boulevard, and twice we have been told no on this.
Weare trying to get our improvements incorporated into those
sets of plans. We even put the design plans together and gave them to
their engineer. We're willing to pay for our improvements, but we
can't get an agreement to get those built along with this stretch of
roadway.
So what's going to happen is, when they build this road and finish
it, we're going back out there and tear it up to put our improvements
in. So it doesn't make sense the way this is going. So we're trying to
get that incorporated into it also.
And I would ask that based on the direction you're heading, that
the construction of that piece across our property, that, you know, you
give them 30 days, 45 days to commence construction based on the
first permit coming out, but put a time frame with it, because I'm
Page 302
--_._..."."'._---~_._.------
. . -~~---,.--
May 24, 2005
looking right here at the schedule it was given. These were time
certain dates.
Again, not knowing when these Corps permits are going to come
out, they can come out next week, they can actually come out a from
-- a year from now. But whenever they come out, I would like to have
a certain duration to complete this work in -- six months to complete it
once they start it, or else we could have another situation similar to
what's happened at Olde Cypress, a road just sitting there not complete
because the time frame given was too much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. So the motion is for -- to
put into the document, the CDD document, that Ronto, once it
receives the Corps of Engineers Permit, either Terafina's, GL Homes'
permits, or Ronto's permit, that the road would be completed. The
first phase will be completed within six months, furthermore,
providing a -- turn lanes and accesses to Terafina at Terafina's cost.
At the cost, at your cost, T erafina will reimburse you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the drainage?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the drainage will be
completed within -- what'd I say, three months?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Three months.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
I have a legal question. The CDD and the developer, I believe,
are different legal entities.
MR. FARRAR: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And attaching this to a CDD agreement,
I don't think, will be sufficiently binding for the developer, and so I'd
like to understand how we can -- I mean, I support what's trying to be
done here. I'd like to make sure we do it in a legally sufficient way.
MR. KLATZKOW: And I don't believe this is the proper vehicle
Page 303
-.-_..,...~._..._-.._-~~-~-----~---
"--'<~-----.--
May 24, 2005
to do this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think we can get there, but not this way.
And it might be better rather than trying to cobble something together
right now --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Continue it.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- but to have staff work with the developer
and see if we can come up with something.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How would you feel about that,
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to -- I'm going to retract
my motion, and motion to continue indefinitely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There's a motion to continue
indefinitely with a second by Commissioner Fiala.
I'm closing the public hearing.
Any further discussion by commissioners?
(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.
(Commissioner Fiala left the hearing room.)
Item #8D
Page 304
May 24, 2005
RESOLUTION 2005-214: A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION'S MISCELLANEOUS FEES FOR
SERVICES, WHICH IS SCHEDULE SIX OF APPENDIX A TO
SECTION FOUR OF COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2001-
73, TITLED THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER
DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AND
REGULATORY STANDARDS ORDINANCE - ADOPTED WITH
CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 8D. It's adopt a
resolution amending the public utilities division's miscellaneous fees
for services, which is schedule six of appendix A, section four of the
Collier County ordinance number 2001-73, titled the Collier County
Water/Sewer District Uniform Billing Operating and Regulatory
Standards Ordinance, and Mr. John Yonkowsky, public utilities
billing, will present.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Make a motion for approval for
approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second -- okay. Motion for approval by
Commissioner Coletta and a second by Commissioner Halas.
Is there anybody who has a question?
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Speaking to the utility staff and
the county manager, they're going to change the testing -- Mr. Schmitt
-- the testing procedures, and that's why the fee is going up. They're
actually going to take the meter off and take it to the shop and bench
test it. The existing fee of $75 is a flow test on site. I just wanted to
give the ability for the consumer and our staff to give an option, either
do the testing there --
MR. DeLONY: (Nods head.)
Page 305
~._".._-
May 24, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if we could amend that
motion to include --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I amend the motion to include
the ability to be able to have them test it in the field.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I abide my second --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we have the amended motion.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify -- do we have
a --
MS. FILSON: Oh, no, no. I'm sorry. I was just looking to see
how the vote was going. I apologize.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll let you know when the votes--
okay. You ready now? Okay. We're going to vote now.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you need to close the public
hearing on each one of these.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: On each one of them, huh? Okay. Then
we're going to close the public hearing.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It carries unanimously.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner--
CHAIRMAN COYLE Okay, John, let's do number E.
Item #8E
RESOLUTION 2005-215: A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
Page 306
'----....-.
May 24, 2005
PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION'S METER INSTALLATION
CHARGES (TAPPING FEES) AND BACKFLOW DEVICE
CHARGES, WHICH IS SCHEDULE FOUR OF APPENDIX A TO
SECTION FOUR OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO.
2001-73, TITLED THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER
DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AND
REGULATORY STANDARDS ORDINANCE-ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 8E. It's adopt a
resolution amending the public utilities division meter installation
charges, tapping fees, and backflow device charges, which is schedule
four of appendix A, to section four of the Collier County ordinance
number 2001-73, titled the Collier County Water/Sewer District
Uniform Billing, Operating, and Regulatory Standards Ordinance, and
again, John Y onkowsky's here to present.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion for approval by Commissioner
Halas, second by Commissioner Coletta.
Is there any -- there are no public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to close the public hearing.
(Commissioner Fiala entered the hearing
room. )
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any discussion by commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 307
,-- -~------..-
May 24, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It carries unanimously.
Item #8F
RESOLUTION 2005-216: A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION'S EFFLUENT IRRIGATION
(REUSE) CUSTOMER RATES, WHICH IS SCHEDULE THREE
OF APPENDIX A TO SECTION FOUR OF COLLIER COUNTY
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-73, TITLED THE COLLIER COUNTY
WATER-SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING
AND REGULATORY STANDARDS ORDINANCE-ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Next item is 8F. It's adopt a resolution amending
the public utilities division effluent irrigation reuse customer rates,
which is schedule three of appendix A to schedule four of the Collier
County ordinance number 2001-73, titled the Collier County
Water/Sewer District Uniform Billing, Operating, and Regulatory
Standards Ordinance, and Mr. Y onkowsky's still standing here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion for approval by Commissioner
Halas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll do it. No, you go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good job, John.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll close the public hearing.
There are no public speakers, right?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Close the public hearing.
Any discussion by commissioners?
Page 308
~~'~
May 24, 2005
(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: Hearing none, it passes unanimously.
Item #8G
RESOLUTION 2005-217: A RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE
WATER AND SEWER RATES (SCHEDULE ONE OF APPENDIX
A TO SECTION FOUR OF COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO.
2001-73, THE COUNTY'S WATER-SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM
BILLING, OPERATING AND REGULATORY STANDARDS
ORDINANCE), PROVIDING A DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is 8G. It's a
recommendation that the board adopt a resolution to amend the water
and sewer rates, schedule one of appendix A to section four of Collier
County ordinance number 2001-73, the County's Water and Sewer
District Uniform Billing, Operating, and Regulatory Standards
Ordinance, providing a delayed effective date, and Mr. Tom Wides
from public utilities operations is here to present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Page 309
~-"--~"-'.'-~'--" ,'-.
May 24, 2005
Henning, second by Commissioner Coletta.
I'll close the public hearing if there are no speakers.
MS. FILSON: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any discussion by commissioners?
(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: Hearing none, the motion passes
unanimously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great presentation, Tom.
MR. WIDES: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #101
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD BID #05-3820, "US 41
ROADWAY LIGHTING MAINTENANCE" TO KENT
TECHNOLOGIES, INCORPORATED FOR AN ESTIMATED
ANNUAL COST OF $130~500 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, the next item is item 101, and it's
16B 13, and that reads, recommendation that the board approve and
authorize the chairman to execute an amendment to the current
contract with McDonald Transit Associates, Inc., to implement
operation modifications to the Collier Area Transit CAT System, and
Commissioner Coyle asked for this item to be moved to the regular
Page 310
May 24, 2005
agenda.
MS. FLAGG: Good evening, Commissioners. This is a contract
amendment to reflect the staffing level and vehicle revenue hours as
outlined in the transit development plan approved by the board in
January and also the budget process.
In addition, there is a question about the farebox revenues, and
I've put a chart on your screen for you. In the transit development
plan it showed flat revenues at 340,000. And I will tell you that the --
that plan was developed when those were the projected revenues.
The ridership has -- continues to far exceed our expectations, and
so those are the actual numbers that's coming in in terms of farebox.
What happens is, is as those farebox revenues continue to exceed
what we have proj ected, that will translate to the FY - '06 budget so it
will reduce the request for FY-'06 because so much money's coming
through farebox.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioners, the reason I asked for
this to be withdrawn is that on the -- in the financial analysis that's
shown in your package, the farebox revenue is shown to be constant
from year 2004 all the way out to 2008, and I thought that was crazy.
And so I pulled this item because I wanted to know what the real
fare box revenue was. And I've received an explanation of why it was
included there. I don't think the explanation is sufficient. I don't know
why we will include in an executive summary figures that are not
accurate, that we know are not accurate.
But nevertheless, I understand they came from an MPO report.
And what we're seeing here are the actual farebox revenues as
opposed to what was budgeted for the next four or five years.
So I would just like to emphasize that we get accurate budget
information, the best possible projections you have, so that we can
properly analyze these things. And this does it. I'm okay with it,
okay.
Anybody have any other questions?
Page 3 11
.---.---..,- ~ ._..,-,---~._--~~~,-,.,...,
May 24, 2005
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'll make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 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: Hearing none, it is unanimous.
Item #10J
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT
TO FUND HIRING SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES TO PROVIDE
TRAFFIC CONTROL AT THE NORTH AND SOUTH ENDS OF
GULFSHORE DRIVE DURING WEEKENDS, HOLIDAYS, AND
SPRING BREAK - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is 10J. It used to be
16D3. Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to fund
hiring sheriff deputies to provide traffic control at the north and south
ends of Gulfshore Drive during weekends, holidays, and spring break,
and that was at Commissioner Henning's request.
And the reason he requested it, the best I could tell, based on our
conversation, was the fact that you had the UFR list coming up on the
Page 312
May 24, 2005
regular agenda, this was going to be consent, and he wanted to make
sure that it was heard on the regular agenda and it wasn't just putting
the cart out in front of the horse.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, that's it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we addressed it earlier today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I think we did. Is there other
action that needs to be taken now?
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did you need a motion on this?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The action we took this morning
should supersede this; is that correct?
MR. MUDD: Do you have the contracts in there?
MS. RAMSEY: No, actually the contracts are existing contracts,
and we're expanding the dollar amount attached to it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But wait a minute, we did this --
we addressed this, so --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. You funded it in the budget.
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
MR. MUDD: It would be good, sir, if you approved this
particular action, just to clarify any --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We allocated the funds. Now they want
to modify the budget, so -- okay.
So we have a motion by Commissioner Halas, a second by
Commissioner Coletta, and we have a question by Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, just a little explanation. I had
wanted to put this on my UFR list, except I saw it in here, and so I just
want to say on the record, I saw it in here, so I didn't put it on my
UFR, so we get it anyway, one way or another.
Page 313
......_~
May 24, 2005
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, that's right.
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.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hearing none, it passes unan -- you're
saying no?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I still don't think that we ought
to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 4-1, with the
Commissioner Henning dissenting.
That should bring us to the end of our agenda, right, Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, unless there's any public comment.
MS. FILSON: There's no public comment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No public comment. Very well.
County Attorney, do you have a report?
MR. KLATZKOW: None.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Mr. Mudd, anything for you?
MR. MUDD: Oh, yes, sir.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
First the Collier Boulevard/Eagle Creek entrance. Okay. The
Page 314
May 24, 2005
last meeting you told the staff to bring back that particular item on 14
June and give FDOT a letter to attend.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Invitation.
MR. MUDD: Then it was -- then it was said that we'll get this --
we'll get this resolved during the MPO meeting on Friday the 13th,
and I believe there was discussion at the MPO meeting, and this came
up. That's what I've been told. And I wasn't there. I believe you were.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I wasn't.
MR. MUDD: Okay. And it got brought up, and the secretary
from the Florida Department of Transportation said that they wouldn't
consider this particular item.
And so what do you want me to do? Do we still want to have
this on the 14th of June after we've got a pretty definitive answer back
from the secretary ofFDOT, I think it was Mr. Kant at the time, or--
I'm kind of in limbo at this particular juncture.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He said that they would not consider it at
the MPO meeting, or he said that FDOT would not consider a
recommendation for a change?
MR. MUDD: Given that FDOT made it clear at the MPO
meeting today, that even with local support, that they would not agree
to placement of the signal at Eagle Creek, how do you want me to
address, signs Norman Feder.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: They were pretty definitive that they wouldn't,
even with local support.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would still like for the board to
authorize me to write a letter to FDOT urging them to reconsider and
specifying any appropriate safety and welfare issues that are
appropriate for the residents.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would like that also.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have one nod.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
Page 315
May 24, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We've got three. So if you will
prepare a letter that specifies the basis for our request, I'd like to get it
out to FDOT and copy the homeowners' association.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
The next item I'd like to talk about is a letter that I received from
Marion County, and in the letter they basically talk about FEMA,
who's one of our favorite people here lately, or an organization that's
very infamous in Collier County at the present time, and basically
talked about not receiving their debris removal amounts of money and
stuff from the last hurricane, and the agency not being very
forthcoming in a prompt way with their payments.
And they want to know if we would like to go with them to
Washington, D.C., to address this particular issue.
Commissioner, I don't know if -- we have sent a staff member to
Washington on FEMA issues before, and it's been very productive for
us to be there and, you know, that person to represent the county and
say, yeah, we're associated with the EOC, and yes, we need prompt
payments.
And I will tell you FEMA has paid Collier County in total,
sheriffs bill and their county bill as far as what's been owed to us, and
I believe that has a lot to do with our paperwork and how prompt we
were in filling it out and getting it in on time.
But they do have an issue in the rest of the State of Florida.
Again, this is from Marion County, and it's signed by Randy Harris,
who's the Marion County commissioner from District 4.
They also have a letter attached that goes to Honorable Cliff
Sterns at the House of Representatives as their representative, and
they're wanting to know if we want to go with them. And I just need
to know your direction. I mean, from a county -- Collier perspective,
they've been prompt with our payments.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is there snow storms predicted up
there?
Page 316
, ---------,.-.
May 24, 2005
MR. MUDD: I hope not, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not right now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where's Marion County?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's our benefit?
MR. MUDD: To go up there and at least listen to see what the
issues are and to see if there's any changes on how FEMA's going to
respond in the future to a major disaster in the State of Florida or in
other counties.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Will it help us in any way
with our future negotiations with FEMA to establish some type of a
rapport?
MR. MUDD: Well, I don't think that this will be a rapport trip,
ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: I think this is more of a B session and to listen to
our complaints and say, why haven't you paid us. So I don't believe
it's going to help us in any way, shape, or form, as far as saying we're
going to tighten our relationships with them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We might be on the receiving
end of this some day when we have a storm as far as this durbish (sic)
removal goes. It's a big issue up in Charlotte County. It's absolutely
buried them, destroyed their budget. They have people laid off, parks
and rec. is just about shut down.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. What is the consensus of the
commission, that we do not participate?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we should participate.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have one for participation.
Do we have any others for participation?
Commissioner Henning is saying no.
Commissioner Fiala?
Page 31 7
May 24, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I think maybe -- I don't want
to -- I have to think about it for a minute. I don't want to ruin our
rapport with them, but at the same time, you know, if we need to be
doing this to make sure that -- you know, who the contacts are if
anything ever happens to us, we'd want to know where to go, that
might be an important thing.
Commissioner Halas, though, seems to have a comment on this.
Maybe that will help me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand when County
Manager Mudd made a statement about, we were able to get back all
the funding that we sent -- that we spent in regards to hurricane
cleanup.
There's always two sides to the story, and I guess we need to find
out what the other side of the story is, and did they submit the
paperwork properly?
And if they didn't, then, of course, then they have some very --
they have some concerns in regards -- they being FEMA and Marion
County, because they need to talk together to find out where the
shortcomings or where the shortfalls are in regards to submitting the
paperwork.
So there's another side of the story, and I -- since we've done very
well-- I can understand where Commissioner Coletta's coming from,
but I also think that the other county maybe needs to -- they've got an
obligation to make sure that they addressed every issue, they dotted
their I's and crossed their T's. We don't know if they did that or not.
That's the part that we don't understand at this point in time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The other point that we have to be
cognizant of is that this is a trip not to talk with FEMA. It is a trip to
talk with u.S. representatives to complain about FEMA, and that's
what it says. Marion County would like to invite all counties to travel
to Washington to address Florida's many u.S. representatives.
Page 318
May 24, 2005
So they're going to the U.S. representatives to complain about
FEMA's treatment of them, and I'm not sure this is the forum for
creating working relationships with FEMA personnel.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I think you're right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I think Commissioner Halas
brought up a really good point, you know, that there's a second side of
the story that we haven't heard.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But obviously FEMA does a lot of
things wrong, like put flood maps in places where they shouldn't be
putting them.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we're going to talk about that in
just a little bit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a general consensus you
don't want to do anything with this?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, right now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: On this particular issue, no, not till
-- unless we can find out some additional information.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've got one, two--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- three, four people, at least, who say
no. Okay.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I'll go.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd make a motion we send
Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to another item.
This has to do with Interstate 75 widening funding, you know, that the
-- and I tried to get it all on one page, and the chair has already read
Page 319
May 24, 2005
So they're going to the U.S. representatives to complain about
FEMA's treatment of them, and I'm not sure this is the forum for
creating working relationships with FEMA personnel.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I think you're right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I think Commissioner Halas
brought up a really good point, you know, that there's a second side of
the story that we haven't heard.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But obviously FEMA does a lot of
things wrong, like put flood maps in places where they shouldn't be
putting them.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we're going to talk about that in
just a little bit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a general consensus you
don't want to do anything with this?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, right now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: On this particular issue, no, not till
-- unless we can find out some additional information.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've got one, two --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- three, four people, at least, who say
no. Okay.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I'll go.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd make a motion we send
Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to another item.
This has to do with Interstate 75 widening funding, you know, that the
-- and I tried to get it all on one page, and the chair has already read
Page 319
._,--,-,.._-_... "
May 24, 2005
this letter, and I sent it by him.
And these are basically two letters to our senators and the state,
one to each that basically says, we really need you to support the 1-75
funding. You know, on the House side they had 72 million that was
earmarked, on the Senate side there's none that are earmarked.
It goes to conference. Representative Young from Alaska, who's
the chair of the transportation on the House side, is going to be a
member and be the lead member from the House side in this particular
conference. They haven't announced the Senate side, but I really
believe that our senators need to mention it to whoever -- whatever
senator gets picked. Could be -- could be Senator Bond from
Missouri.
And I've heard some rumors that this is important to us. It is a --
it is not only just a regional problem -- it's just not a county problem,
it's a regional problem, Southwest Florida, but it's more than that. It's
a 50 state problem, because during high season, we have
representatives from every state down here that exacerbate the issues
with this particular roadway.
And I think we made that quite clear, Commissioner Halas, when
we did our trip in Washington the first week in March, but I believe
that these letters would be important at this particular time to have the
chair sign just to make sure that they know that we're still -- we're still
out there rooting for it.
We talked to the Florida Department of Transportation's liaison
in Washington, D.C., and asked if they wanted us to take a trip. They
said, no, right now your letters of support from your chair would be a
good thing to have. So that's why I drafted the letters, and I'm
wondering if you'd agree to have the chair sign these and send them
off to Washington.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Definitely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, certainly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We've got three nods here.
Page 320
May 24, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I make a comment? I'm not
sure, but I don't know if the newspaper ever cleared up -- they left the
impression, that I've heard back anyway, that I-75's widening will not
take place and -- because of this, and, of course, that isn't the case.
The case is it's just going to be slowed down because we're not going
to have that influx of money to start it sooner.
MR. MUDD: No, ma'am, that's not the case at all. On the
Senate side, the Senate doesn't normally earmark projects, okay. They
basically worry about the percentage, the number of cents that come
back on every dollar on gas tax that's paid.
Right now the State of Florida gets 88 cents on the dollar. There
are states of the union that get more than a dollar for a dollar. There's
some that get 250 -- or $2.50 on the dollar that they pay because
they're a receiver state. We're a donor state.
One of the things that Commissioner Halas and I tried to get
through, at least on the Senate side, was to make sure that we get into
the 95 cents on the dollar.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr.
Mudd. But at the legislative conference, Mike Davis got up and he
stated on the record, he said, you understand 1-75 will still be widened.
He said, we have the money to do that; is that correct, Norman?
MR. FEDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have the money to do that, he
said. But by not getting this influx of money, it puts it off a little bit.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The additional 12 million, which
took it up to 72 million. They earmarked 50 million, but they didn't --
MR. MUDD: Oh, I think --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's not --
MR. MUDD: Can I finish just for a second, okay?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
Page 321
May 24, 2005
MR. MUDD: The Senate doesn't earmark. It goes to conference.
Normally when it goes into conference, it comes out -- it's when the
House and the Senate come together and they do earmark particular
dollars during that conference, and that's what goes to the president for
signature.
So it's important to whatever senators go to this conference bill,
that they support Representative Young who's on our side as far as this
$72 million so that we can still get the dollars
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't disagree that we should do
this. In fact, I was going to call Senator Biden. I don't know what he
could do to help, but I have some -- friends with him, and so I would
be happy to do that. But what I wanted to say was I wanted to clear
up the misconception that 1-75 wouldn't be widened if this didn't go
through.
MR. MUDD: No, ma'am, that's not the case. You're right, you're
absolutely correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I believe that that's the
impression that readers got when they saw the newspaper, and so I just
wanted to clarify, it will get built. But this is very important to getting
it built faster. And then, maybe we can have it widened all the way to
951 or something like that. You know, whatever. But I just wanted to
say that road will be widened. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're going to fix that Dennis,
right, the misperception? Good.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Anything else?
MR. MUDD: Sir, the next item is the FEMA letter that you
received. I received it yesterday, but I think you -- you might have got
it yesterday, too, sir. But this is a letter from FEMA that basically
talks about putting the flood plane maps into effect.
I want you to pay attention to November 17th. They had told us
on the phone it would be 1 July, and then Mr. Schmitt, I'd like him to
come up and talk to the board just for a second or so basically to talk
Page 322
,..,.. "--"..~
May 24, 2005
about what options we have at this particular juncture.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, before you do that, I want a
clarification. They're saying that the revised data was not received by
March 31 st, 2005. Is that true or not?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, all the data for Collier County,
lock, stock, and barrel, from the cost all the way to touch to Broward,
Miami-Dade, was not all in on 31 March.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. What portion was in on 31
March?
MR. MUDD: The coastal part, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And that's the one that is most
dramatically impacted; is that not the case?
MR. MUDD : Yes, sir. During these maps, that's the one that's
most impacted.
MR. SCHMITT: Can I clarify, Commissioner Coyle? For the
record, again, Joe Schmitt, administrator of community
development! environmental services.
There are two issues of concerns here. Of course, the Sheet 2D
study, this started, as you well know, back in 1996, and the Sheet 2D
study was the area that was most contentious that had to do with
mostly around Golden Gate City, Golden -- I mean, Golden Gate and
the Golden Gate area, Orangetree. The second was, of course, the
issue having to do with the surge model and the surge studies.
But when you say data, there's a series of data that have to go in.
It's a repetitive kind of a iterative and repetitive process. We provide
the data, they review it, they provide back comments, and it goes back
and forth.
Everything that had to do with the coastal study was into FEMA
by the middle of April. There was some preliminary submittals in
March, the rest of it was in their hands in April. They have done
nothing with the information that we have provided to date.
Now, I can have Robert Wiley come up and give a thorough
Page 323
May 24, 2005
review, but unfortunately, this project, more -- turned into a lot more
than what we thought it was going to be a year ago.
What was, a year ago, the Sheet 2D study and the coastal region
of the county grew into seven basins and the coastal area, and the
thoughts from FEMA was, it was an all-or-nothing game. You turn in
everything for the entire county, all seven basins -- actually six, Ave
Maria was added late in the game -- and you turn them all in so we
can have all the information, or it was all or nothing. And that was
certainly not our understanding or our agreement.
We focused on the coastal area first. We thought that was the
most important in regards to the impact on the county.
My talks, again, with FEMA on Monday, they're still focussing--
quite frankly, they think Golden Gate is the most critical issue. But
they did acquiesce to our concerns in regards to the inaccuracies in the
maps, the many, many anomalies that we questioned, and that is now
a Zone D.
But I have some graphics if you want to see how this --
fundamentally how they -- the flood maps have changed, and if you
want to get into that this evening.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I know how they've changed. I've been
working on this for seven years.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I was on the city council when we
decided we'd negotiate an agreement with the county to jointly pursue
a protest of these maps. I'm particularly disappointed it has taken us
that long to come up with the protest data. I can remember times
when we were discussing this, and they told us to get it to them within
six months, and that was probably 2002.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, nothing was been done until
last year. There were some studies done to basically prove the maps
were not valid, but there was nothing done by this county until last
year when Commissioner Coletta and my staff, some of my staff, went
Page 324
May 24, 2005
up to talk to the folks at FEMA region four.
We, at that time, left knowing that this probably would be a
two-year process. We asked for a year, we got six months, actually
we got eight months. Eight months for us to complete all the studies
for an area certainly the size of the State of Road Island.
But that -- but that, as I said, morphed into a lot more than what it
was when you were on the city council. There was really nothing
done over the years other than letters back and forth and disputes in
regards to the data that was used for the base -- the preliminary maps.
A year ago we agreed, and FEMA agreed, to accept our study
proposal as an alternative for the flood -- the flood insurance studies
that support the flood insurance rate maps, and we agreed that we
would then spend that money. And we had to come to you on three
different occasions to basically get more money as this proj ect began
to morph into much more than what it was.
Also, sadly to say, this county -- the mapping situation in this
county was deplorable. Eighteen months ago there was no vertical
control -- no vertical control in the Estates. In 2002 and 2003, not to
have vertical control is -- well, I mean, from an engineering
standpoint, that's absolutely criminal.
But it was through the efforts of Stan Chryzanowski and the
engineering staff, we partnered with the federal government, we got
vertical control put in 47 stations, if I recall, Stan, somewhere in that
area where we got the vertical control.
And then we had to turn around where when a year ago we
thought that the lidar maps that -- the lidar information we had was
going to be valid and accepted, it was not. It was never registered.
We had to then pay almost $30,000 to have that registered to known
points in the county, again, requiring surveyors to take the appraiser's
lidar, and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, we don't have to rehash
everything that's happened here, but--
Page 325
May 24, 2005
MR. SCHMITT: It was one issue after another.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: My memory of this is substantially
different from yours.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I'm going to ask that you provide
me with copies of the minutes of every meeting we have had on the
FEMA issue for as far back as you've got records, because I recall
sitting in meetings and discussing with consultants, and I remember
making decisions about paying a consultant to do certain things, and I
remember having extensive discussions about wave setup heights and
all of those things a long, long time ago.
Now, I am very concerned that I -- I'm concerned most about
FEMA, but I am also concerned that we didn't meet some deadlines
that we knew were deadlines, and we made the assumption that we
were going to be able to have a friendly negotiation with FEMA, and I
don't think we took this seriously enough, I really don't.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, we took it very seriously.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I don't get that impression.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But nevertheless, you have a chance to
prove me wrong. You get me those minutes of those meetings, let's
discuss what was decided then, what the deadlines were that we
established -- what, was it Tomasello --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and Company, what they committed to
doing, when they committed to doing it. I can even remember when
they stood before us said, we can analyze this and tell you within the
next 60 days whether or not you have a good chance of winning this
argument about the flood data.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, and that was done. There was a
lot of studies done to support the fight to prove that the maps that they
were trying to implement were inaccurate. Those things were done.
Page 326
May 24, 2005
What was not done and what we agreed to back a year ago was to
do the study ourselves, and that's when we came to you for the money
to do the studies ourselves.
When I said nothing was done, there were studies done to
disprove the maps that were being proposed to be fielded, but there
was nothing done from the county in regards to trying to initiate us to
do the studies themselves.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The reason I'm -- the reason I'm getting
into this is that if we're going to get into a battle with FEMA, we've
got to make sure we're clean, okay, and the last thing I want to do is
get blind-sided by FEMA if we get into a legal argument with them
and they say, we told you you had to do this by such and such a time
and you didn't do it.
And I think that's exactly what they've done to us. They have
just decided, you didn't meet our deadline, so we're going to throw it
all away.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, in summation, yes, that's exactly--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And so we've got to deal with that. I
would just like to make a recommendation that we investigate a
potential legal injunction against FEMA to keep them from
implementing these maps if that is possible. What do you think?
MR. KLATZKOW: Sir, we will certainly prepare a
memorandum to that effect.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. If you could just advise us as to
what that would involve.
And Commissioner Henning, let me -- he's got his light on first.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sorry. I just wanted to get your
attention.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we all knew when the
date was, and it wasn't about a month ago that we had -- was informed
that, hey, we've got a problem, we're not going to get done. You
know, shame on us. I guess it really wasn't that important.
Page 327
~. .~,-_..._,~.-------,-
May 24, 2005
The second thing is, what was the contract with the consultant on
putting together the new maps? What is the responsibility there?
And, you know --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've got to understand that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're exactly right,
Commissioner Coyle, is we all knew the date, and it slipped away.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I wanted to point out that
we -- we were pretty much informed of the fact that it was going to
take longer than allowed, we were hoping to get an extension of the
time. But the truth of the matter is, our delaying action and putting it
on hold like that has saved the taxpayers of Collier County tens of
millions of dollars in premiums they didn't have to pay because we're
going through this process trying to sort out what it is that is flood --
that's required under the flood insurance.
And I agree, we have to keep the -- we have to keep it going, we
have to keep the fight going. I think staff has done an admirable job,
and we fell a little bit behind with the hurricanes as far as Tomasello
goes. They had -- there are requirements they had to fill for their other
customers, and they fell behind because of being -- the hurricane
itself, three hurricanes.
So it's been an ongoing process. I don't think there's been
anything left along the way where the commission hasn't been
informed. We've been informed every step of the dir -- every
direction, every step of the way, but you'll find that out when you get
those minutes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep, I hope so. Now, does anybody
disagree with asking our county attorney to give us a legal opinion on
how we can maybe keep FEMA from doing this, from implementing
those maps? Is there any objection by any of the members?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we're ready to go.
Page 328
May 24, 2005
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, we did have one extension,
right, from January to March?
MR. SCHMITT: We had one extension. We had a December
deadline, which we knew was impossible last March when we first
were told we could do this. They gave us a three-month extension,
and --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just for the record.
MR. SCHMITT: -- we provided the preponderance of the
information. And we will have everything to them final by the 1 st of
July. They have done nothing with the information we provided.
When I spoke with the representative at FEMA, they pretty much
said, well, we really don't have the money to spend on this project
because it's -- we give them the data, they review the data, they
provide it back to our consultant. Based on technical comments and
critiques, we run the models again, and then our consultant produces
the draft maps, and then the maps are then sent to FEMA to finalize.
So it is somewhat of an iterative process.
They simply do not believe that we could even finish based on
where we are right now, and I totally disagree. We will -- we will
have everything in.
We've been consulting with James Lee Witt, Witt and Associates,
to ask them to intervene, and they're looking into it right now. They'll
provide me back a quote, whether or not they think they can intervene
as a lobbyist on our behalf to try and convince FEMA, because,
frankly, the preliminary data that we have from our consultant in
regards to the -- looking at the coastal maps pretty much refutes the
flood elevations -- the base flood elevations that they are proposing.
And we have the information now to pretty much prove that their
implementation is flawed; however --
MR. MUDD: Joe, let me -- just for brevity -- we'll give you all
the backup documents, sir. I'd ask the county attorney's office to give
Page 329
May 24, 2005
us an idea about injunction, understand that we'll have all the data in
by the 1 st of July.
They're not going to implement until the 17th of November. And
you know, you also have to worry about good faith on their part, okay,
and Mr. Schmitt did talk about the telling him that they didn't have
money in their budget anyway to do anything with their consultant,
Newberry ( sic) --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Dewberry.
MR. MUDD: -- Dewberry and Davis.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Dewberry and Davis.
MR. MUDD: Okay. They didn't have any money to do that, so
we were just being led on. We've got mission impossible. We asked
for two years, they gave us six months, they gave us a three-month
extension.
You know, my answer to everybody is, if you know it's going to
take two years and you short-sheet them, guess what, you're going to
be short -sheeted.
We've gone through a pretty good effort, and we'll give you all
that information, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. That will be helpful.
Commissioner Halas?
MR. MUDD: Let it go, Joe.
MR. SCHMITT: I need to ask for some guidance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I also think that they had a -- they
had some problems because of the software that was presented to the
county and trying to interface the software that was presented by
FEMA, and then we had to basically rewrite all the software to make
it compatible with what we were trying to do. Is my -- am I correct
on my assumption there?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, what they gave us, the models
that they gave us, were converted for tran -- programs that they ran in
the '80s that were converted to run on PC. We were the first county in
Page 330
May 24, 2005
the country to actually use those to run the models. Our contractor
spent more time debugging the model than he did running the data
through the model, and we are still having problems with that.
But we are the first county -- we're the only county, really, that's
done this. There's another county right now that's going through the
similar situation we are in St. Louis, St. Louis County. But this is
pretty much where we're at.
I guess from the guidance perspective, you want us to -- the other
thing we're going to do is continue to fight this. And from a
standpoint of a county perspective, once the maps -- I need to let you
know at least from the risk perspective, that this is a -- basically a final
notice, and if we refuse to implement and follow the base flood
elevation mandates, it will have a significant detrimental impact on
our community rating system for flood insurance for the county.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, nobody's talked about refusing to
do anything. We're talking about a legal process of trying to stop
them from implementing it.
And all I would suggest to you is that we move ahead rapidly to
get this stuff done as quickly as possible, and then the county attorney
can advise us as to what our legal options are. And if we have an
opportunity for proceeding through the courts, then at least we'll have
the data necessary to back up our position.
So let's continue to march on that. Is everybody okay with that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, last item, and I'm sorry I'm so
long-winded today, and I don't want to win your award.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're having some help.
MR. MUDD: We've to -- we received our two appraisals for
Caribbean Gardens from our two independents, okay. They came in
very tight to each other, which is -- which is good news.
We are waiting on the appraisal from the family, from the
Page 331
""..-..----.---
May 24, 2005
Fleischmanns. They were supposed to have that in the first of this
week. I believe, based on our -- my conversation, it's significantly
higher than our two appraisals, and our independents will take a look
at their appraisal to see if there's any problems with it as they go
through the negotiation, and that's where we sit, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And you're not going to reveal
our appraisals until we get their appraisal; is that essentially --
MR. MUDD: Until our -- until the Trust for Public Lands, Mr.
Garrison, has an opportunity to give them our offer and get some
replies. Let us take a look so it still stays friendly, and I believe that
will pay us dividends in the long run, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, wait a minute, back up. I'm not
sure I understand. They are going to give us -- the family is going to
give us their appraisal soon. At that point in time, then the Trust for
Public Lands will start negotiations with respect to purchase; is that
basically what we're --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you're right. But the Trust for
Public Lands knows that the only thing that we can offer, okay, is the
average of our two appraisals.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Let our two appraisers, independent ones, review
the appraiser from Fort Myers, who isn't local, and figure out if there's
any areas that look like they're in error so that we can -- our
intermediary could go -- Mr. Garrison from the Trust for Public Lands
-- can go with that arm back to the family and make -- and make that
offer.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So, bottom line is, we're going to
get their appraisal, we're going to look at their appraisal, and then
we're going to go talk?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you. Is that all, I hope?
MR. MUDD: I hope.
Page 332
May 24, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was going to ask Stan, where
do I stand on my house in my flood area, but he just left.
But there is one thing. We had a change order on the agenda. It
actually is a good change order. North Naples Regional Park, over a
million dollars, really bringing down that park, and the total change
orders to date is like $10 million negative, which is a good thing.
The reason I wanted to bring up North Naples Regional Park,
even though it is in North Naples, it's going to service the whole
county, and even more than that, the region, because of, you know, the
splash park, the ball fields, the soccer courts. And I would -- just
asking if there's any consideration of my colleagues to ask the school
kids or somebody, hey, you got a better name than North Naples
Regional Park?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure. Coyle Park would be really nice.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Coyle Park.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's in my district, why not call it
Halas Park.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Halas Park.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That might not be a bad idea.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: As long as it's not called Best Friends
Park or something like that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you think you could bring
some recommendations, or --
MS. RAMSEY: Well, actually, that -- the name was actually
discussed at parks and recreation advisory board last week, and parks
and recreation advisory boards really likes the name North Collier
Regional Parks because it encompasses a larger area. And they voted
on bringing that forward to discuss that as the option, North Collier
Regional Park.
Page 333
May 24, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess that's better than North
Naples Regional Park. Collier Splash Park? You know, and -- I think
it would say more than, you know, the uses --
MS. RAMSEY: Well, part of our marketing plan is inside the
North Collier Regional Park, we would have a separate name for the
water park area, and the name that's sticking out there right now is
Aquatica.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aquatica?
MS. RAMSEY: Aquatica.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's terminate this conversation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, that sounds good. Can I
go home?
MS. RAMSEY: So we have requested additional names for that
particular element for marketing purposes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Splash Park is a lot easier to
understand than Aquatica.
MS. RAMSEY: It doesn't really roll off your tongue, does it?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I wouldn't dare say anything.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good, good, and I'm not either. And I
would hope the other two commissioners don't also.
You don't have anything to say, do you?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just a couple pages here. No,
I'm just glad today's coming to an end.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I'll make this as brief as
possible. Commissioners, I feel that we owe the county here an EOC
center. I believe that the center that we presently have, I think all of
us realize it's very antiquated and it doesn't meet the conditions that
this county is growing in. And I would hope that one of the
commissioners would find the heart to bring this back, because I think
it's very, very important.
Page 334
May 24, 2005
We're looking at a time frame of two years, and if we have to
look at other places and have to look at buying property and whatever
else, and then looking at new engineering designs, we could be as far
as five years away. And at the rate that this county is growing, I really
think that we -- as commissioners, we have to make sure that we take
care of the citizens that are here in this county. It's part of the health,
safety, and welfare issue, and I really believe strongly that we need to
address this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think it's already been solved, but
nevertheless.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I hope so.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We all agree with you, you know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think the county manager has a plan,
and I think it will get done.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I sure hope so.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He can work miracles, so it's -- we're out
of here.
***** Commissioner Coletta moved, seconded by Commissioner
Fiala and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO SUBMIT A
GRANT PROPOSAL TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU OF INVASIVE
PLANT MANAGEMENT (BIPM) FOR CONTRACTOR
SERVICES TO REMOVE MELALEUCA WITHIN THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER RAILHEAD SCRUB PRESERVE
(AMERICA'S BUSINESS PARK)
Page 335
May 24, 2005
Item #16A2
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH KATHERINE
LUBBERS, MARY ANN CHAMBL Y, AND RONALD GENE
THOMAS FOR 1.14 ACRE UNDER THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT
TO EXCEED $37.850.00
Item #16A3
PAYMENT FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD TO ATTEND THE FLORIDA
ASSOCIATION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT 2005
EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOP - LOCATED IN FT. MYERS ON
JUNE 15 - 18.2005 AT A COST OF $405.00
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 2005-191: PETITION AVESMT2005-AR7154 TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE, AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND
THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT
CONVEYED TO COLLIER COUNTY BY SEPARATE
INSTRUMENT AND RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK
980, PAGES 1374 THROUGH 1375, AND IN THE IRRIGATION
MAIN EASEMENTS AS REFERENCED IN RESOLUTION
NO.92-341, AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1740,
PAGES 919 THROUGH 948, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, LOCATED IN SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP
48 SOUTH. RANGE 26 EAST
Item #16A5
Page 336
May 24, 2005
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH ANTONIE
AND STEFAN COOKE FOR 1.59 ACRE UNDER THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM,
AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $40.900
Item #16A6
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "FIDDLER'S CREEK UNIT
5, A VIAMAR PHASE ONE", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD
FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY - W/ STIPULATIONS
Item #16A7
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "VALENCIA LAKES
PHASE 5-A", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY - W/ STIPULATIONS
Item #16A8
CLAIMS BY TWO FORMER OWNERS OF LOTS WITHIN
IMPERIAL WILDERNESS RV RESORT, FOR
REIMBURSEMENTS TOTALING $5,456.88 IN OVERPAID
IMPACT FEES, AND AUTHORIZE PAYMENTS OF THE SAME
- AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A9
FIVE YEAR CONTRACT BETWEEN THE FLORIDA FISH AND
Page 337
May 24, 2005
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION (FWCC) FOR THE
MANAGEMENT OF WATERWAYS MARKERS AT AN
ANNUAL COST OF $20,000 TO BE FULLY REIMBURSED BY
THE FWCC AND TO GRANT THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATOR AUTHORITY TO SIGN ANNUAL
CONTRACT EXTENSIONS - TO PRESERVE AND ENHANCE
THE SAFETY OF WATERWAYS IN COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16AI0
AMENDMENT TO THE WATER WELL CONSTRUCTION
PROGRAM DELEGATION AGREEMENT WITH SOUTH
FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT - TO
REGULATE THE CONSTRUCTION, REPAIR AND
ABANDONMENT OF WATER WELLS
Item #16All
RESOLUTION 2005-192: SUBMISSION OF THE 2005
CONTINUUM OF CARE (COC) HOMELESS ASSISTANCE
CONSOLIDATED GRANT APPLICATION TO THE UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT (HUD) IN THE AMOUNT OF $597,321, AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE APPLICATION
ON BEHALF OF COLLIER COUNTY AND THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BCC) - FOR THREE PROJECTS
THAT WILL BENEFIT THE HOMELESS POPULATION IN
COLLIER COUNTY - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16B 1
Page 338
May 24, 2005
RESOLUTION 2005-193: ESTABLISHING A "NO PARKING"
ZONE ON V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD (CR 862) FOR A
DISTANCE OF 1000 FEET EAST AND 1000 FEET WEST OF
THE CENTERLINE OF VANDERBILT DRIVE (CR 901) ALONG
BOTH THE NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN SHOULDERS OF
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD, AT A COST OF
APPROXIMATELY $1600 - DUE TO A SIGHT-DISTANCE
PROBLEM WHERE VEHICLES WERE PRESENTING AN
OBSTRUCTION TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC
Item #16B2
THREE (3) ADOPT-A-ROAD AGREEMENTS FOR THE
FOLLOWING: JOHN R. WOOD, INC. REALTY - JEAN MARC
KATZEFF,A TODA MARCHA AND A TODAMARCHA-AT A
TOTAL COST OF $150.00
Item #16B3
AWARD BID #05-3804, "TRAFFIC PRE-EMPTION
EQUIPMENT," TO TEMPLE, INCORPORATED - TO BE USED
TO SAFELY MOVE FIRE, AMBULANCE AND SHERIFF'S
OFFICE VEHICLES THROUGH INTERSECTIONS BY
GRANTING A UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION CODE - EXPECTED
COST TO BE $200.000 PER YEAR
Item #16B4
RESOLUTION 2005-194: AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF THE
TRIP AND EQUIPMENT GRANT APPLICATION WITH THE
FLORIDA COMMISSION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
Page 339
May 24, 2005
DISADVANTAGED (CTD). ($556,218) - TO COVER A PORTION
OF THE OPERATING EXPENSES OF THE TRANSPORTATION
DISADV ANT AGED PROGRAM
Item #16B5-Continued to June 14,2005 BCC Meeting
AWARD RFP 05-3798, IN THE AMOUNT OF $134,002 TO
TINDALE-OLIVER AND ASSOCIATES, INC., FOR
CONSULTANT SERVICES FORA TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES IMP ACT FEE UPDATE STUDY - AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16B6
WORK ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $314,275.50 TO D. N.
HIGGINS, INC. FOR THE FISH BRANCH CREEK BOX
CULVERT PROJECT (PROJECT #510211), IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE GENERAL UNDERGROUND UTILITY CONTRACT
NO. 04-3535 - TO EXTEND THE LENGTH OF THE TWIN BOX
CULVERT WHICH WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SHOULDER
SPACE AND IMPROVE SAFETY CONDITIONS
Item #16B7
CONTRACT FOR RFP-05-3774 "GORDON RIVER WATER
QUALITY PARK-ENGINEERING DESIGN" IN THE AMOUNT
OF $599,850.00 TO CH2M HILL - TO ASSIST THE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DIVISION, STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT IN THE DESIGN OF THE
GORDON RIVER WATER QUALITY PARK
Item #16B8
Page 340
May 24, 2005
AWARD BID #05-3822, FIBER OPTIC COMMUNICATIONS
INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE," TO KENT
TECHNOLOGIES, INCORPORATED (PRIMARY) AND
PRECISION CONTRACTING SERVICES, INCORPORATED
(SECONDARY) AS PART OF A JOINT FIBER OPTICS
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT BETWEEN THE COLLIER
COUNTY TRAFFIC OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT (PROJECT
#60172-2) AND THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
DEPARTMENT (PROJECT #50028) AT AN ESTIMATED COST
OF $659,070.51 - TO INSTALL 45 MILES OF FIBER OPTIC
CABLE FOR AN ADDITIONAL 65 INTERSECTIONS AND 25
MONITORING CAMERAS
Item #16B9
SUPPLEMENT AGREEMENT NO.2, TO PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES AGREEMENT NO. 02-3398 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$362,688.00 FOR ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES TO
BE PROVIDED BY CH2M HILL, INC., FOR DESIGN AND
PERMITTING MODIFICATIONS FOR THE SIX-LANING OF
COLLIER BOULEVARD FROM GOLDEN GA TE BOULEVARD
TO IMMOKALEE ROAD~ PROJECT NO. 65061
Item #16BI0
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS TO CONSTRUCT THE SIX-
LANING OF COLLIER BOULEVARD, FROM GOLDEN GATE
BOULEVARD TO IMMOKALEE ROAD, PROJECT NO. 65061
AT AN ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST OF $20~000~000
Item #16Bll
Page 341
May 24, 2005
AWARD BID #05-3810 "LIVINGSTON ROAD LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE ANNUAL CONTRACT" TO COMMERCIAL
LAND MAINTENANCE, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $341,491.11
INCLUDING THE ALTERNATES - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16B12 Moved to Item # 10H
Item #16B13 Moved to Item #101
Item #16B14
AWARD BID #05-3820, "US 41 ROADWAY LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE" TO KENT TECHNOLOGIES,
INCORPORATED FOR AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST OF
$130,500.00 - FOR MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF
APPROXIMATELY 580 LUMINAIRES ON US 41 TO COLLIER
BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF GRANADA BOULEVARD TO
OLD US 41
Item #16B15
INITIATING THE COMPETITIVE SELECTION AND
NEGOTIATION PROCESS TO SECURE AND EXECUTE A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH A
QUALIFIED ENGINEERING/SURVEYING FIRM TO CONDUCT
THE REQUIRED SURVEY IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES (GGE)
AREA FOR APPROXIMATELY 100 MILES OF LOCAL
ROADWAYS, AND THE ASSOCIATED DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS - AT AN APPROXIMATE COST OF $750~000
Page 342
May 24, 2005
Item #16B16
AWARD BID #05-3832 LIVINGSTON ROAD (V ANDERBIL T
BEACH ROAD TO IMMOKALEE ROAD) LANDSCAPE AND
IRRIGATION INSTALLATION TO VILA AND SON
LANDSCAPING CORPORATION WITH A BASE AMOUNT OF
$692,040.83 AND 10% CONTINGENCY OF $69,204.08, FOR A
TOTAL OF $761~244.91
Item #16B17
AWARD BID #05-3832 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY
LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION INSTALLATION TO VILA
AND SON LANDSCAPING CORPORATION WITH A BASE
AMOUNT OF $405,776.90 AND 10% CONTINGENCY OF
$40~577.69~ FOR A TOTAL OF $446~354.59
Item #16B18
AWARD COLLIER COUNTY BID #05-3830 DAVIS
BOULEVARD LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION
RENOVATIONS TO VILA & SON LANDSCAPING
CORPORATION WITH A BASE BID AMOUNT OF $112,858.75
AND THE BROOKSIDE PLANTING ADDENDUM #3 BID
ALTERNATE OF $19,083.20 PLUS A 10% CONTINGENCY, FOR
A TOTAL OF $145.136.14
Item #16B19
AWARD BID #05-3830 U.S. 41 NORTH (VANDERBILT BEACH
ROAD TO IMMOKALEE ROAD) LANDSCAPE AND
IRRIGATION INSTALLATION TO VILA AND SON
Page 343
May 24, 2005
LANDSCAPING CORPORATION WITH A BASE AMOUNT OF
$277,756.27 AND 10% CONTINGENCY OF $27,775.63, FORA
TOTAL OF $305..531
Item #16B20
AWARD BID #05-3830 U.S. 41 EAST (RATTLESNAKE
HAMMOCK TO ST. ANDREWS BLVD.) LANDSCAPE AND
IRRIGATION INSTALLATION TO HANNULA LANDSCAPING
WITH A BASE OF $429,439.58 AND 10% CONTINGENCY OF
$42..943.96.. FOR A TOTAL OF $472..383.53
Item #16B21
AWARD BID #05-3812 GOODLETTE FRANK (PINE RIDGE
ROAD TO VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD) LANDSCAPE AND
IRRIGATION INSTALLATION TO HANNULA LANDSCAPING
WITH BASE AMOUNT AND ALTERNATES OF $631,635.43
AND 10% CONTINGENCY OF $63,163.54, FOR A TOTAL OF
$694..798.97 (PROJECT #601344)
Item #16Cl
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER FUNDS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $395,000 FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY
WATER-SEWER DISTRICT OPERATING FUND (408)
RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCIES, IN ADDITION TO A
TRANSFER OF $17,000 FROM THE NORTH COUNTY WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITIES CAPITAL OPERATING BUDGET
AND $33,000 FROM THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITIES CAPITAL OPERATING BUDGET
TO COVER UNANTICIPATED OPERATING EXPENSES IN THE
Page 344
May 24, 2005
AMOUNT OF $445,000 INCURRED BY THE NORTH COUNTY
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY, WASTEWATER REUSE,
AND THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION
FACILITY - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16C2
SA TISF ACTIONS FOR CERTAIN WATER AND/OR SEWER
IMPACT FEE PAYMENT AGREEMENTS. FISCAL IMPACT IS
$77.00 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN
Item #16C3
SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF CLAIM OF LIEN FOR
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE. FISCAL IMPACT
IS $48.50 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN
Item #16C4
RESOLUTION 2005-195: SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR A
SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE
COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS
SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1992 SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $20.00 TO RECORD THE
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
Item #16C5
RESOLUTION 2005-196: SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR A
SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE
COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS
Page 345
May 24, 2005
SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $20.00 TO RECORD THE
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
Item #16C6
RESOLUTION 2005-197: SATISFACTION OF LIEN FORA
SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE
COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS
SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1994 SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $20.00 TO RECORD THE
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
Item #16C7
RESOLUTION 2005-198: SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR A
SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE
COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS
SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1995 SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $20.00 TO RECORD THE
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
Item #16C8
RESOLUTION 2005-199: SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR A
SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE
COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS
SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1996 SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
Page 346
May 24, 2005
ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $20.00 TO RECORD THE
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
Item #16C9-Withdrawn
PURCHASE A MC2 MAPPING MOBILE COLLECTION
SYSTEM FROM AMCO WATER METERING SYSTEMS, INC.
IN THE AMOUNT OF $36,000.00 - TO COMBINE THE
COUNTY'S WIRELESS AUTOMATED METER READING
SOFTWARE WITH A GLOBAL POSITIONING SOFTWARE
MAPPING SYSTEM
Item #16CI0
RESOLUTION 2005-200/CWS RESOLUTION 2005-03:
AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF LAND BY GIFT OR
PURCHASE OF NON-EXCLUSIVE PERPETUAL UTILITY AND
MAINTENANCE EASEMENTS, TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS AND ACCESS EASEMENTS
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF WATER TRANSMISSION
MAINS ALONG C.R. 951 (COLLIER BOULEVARD) FROM
DAVIS BOULEVARD SOUTH TO U.S. 41, PROJECT NUMBERS
70151 AND 70152, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $2,297,444-
AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16Cll
RETURN THE FUND BALANCE OF $82,402.10 TO THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION (FDEP) FOR CONTRACT NO. GC623, TASK
ASSIGNMENT 2 AND 3 AND THE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENT
Page 347
May 24, 2005
Item #16C12
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,415 TO
RECOGNIZE ADDITIONAL REVENUE FROM INSURANCE
COMPANY REFUNDS AND TRANSFER FUNDS FROM OTHER
MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT TO AUTOS AND TRUCKS
Item #16C13
TRANSFER OF A 0.25 FTE (FULL TIME EQUIVALENT)
POSITION FROM MISCELLANEOUS GRANT FUND (116) TO
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FUND (114) - FOR A SENIOR
PROJECT MANAGER WITH THE POLLUTION CONTROL &
PREVENTION DEPARTMENT
Item #16C14
AWARD THE CONSTRUCTION OF A "PIGGING STATION FOR
IMMOKALEE ROAD 30-INCH FORCE MAIN", BID 05-3766R,
PROJECT 739431, FOR $643,500.00 TO DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS,
INC. - TO IMPROVE THE RELIABILITY OF THE IMMOKALEE
ROAD 30-INCH FORCE MAIN
Item #16C15
ADD TWO FULL TIME EQUIVALENTS (FTE'S) IN mL Y 2005
THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR THE FY2006 BUDGET AND
APPROVE A RELATED BUDGET AMENDMENT. THE
POSITIONS ARE FOR CUSTOMER SERVICE PERTAINING TO
THE SOLID WASTE MANDATORY COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL PROGRAM. FISCAL IMPACT IS $38,700 FOR
Page 348
May 24, 2005
FY2005
Item #16C16
EXECUTION OF A LETTER OF AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE
CONSULTING SERVICES, NOT TO EXCEED $24,500.00, TO
ASSIST THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT
("THE DISTRICT") IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF BULK
WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE RATES TO PROVIDE
BULK SERVICE TO SPECIFIC AREAS SERVED BY THE CITY
OF MARCO ISLAND ("THE CITY"), TO DEVELOP WATER
AND WASTEWATER IMP ACT FEES FOR PROVIDING LONG
TERM BULK SERVICE TO THE CITY AND TO REVIEW THE
WHOLESALE WATER AND WASTEWATER AGREEMENTS
BETWEEN THE DISTRICT AND THE CITY
Item #16C17
AWARD OF CONTRACT #05-3829 FOR A PAVED P A THW A Y
AND VIEWING BENCHES AROUND PONDS A AND B AT THE
EAGLE LAKES NATURE INTERPRETIVE CENTER PROJECT
74050, IN THE AMOUNT OF $357,379.12 - TO ENHANCE THE
WILDLIFE AND BIRD VIEWING OPPORTUNITIES
AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC BY PROVIDING A PAVED
PATHWAY AND COVERED VIEWING BENCHES
Item #16Dl
AGREEMENT WITH THE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF
COLLIER COUNTY FOR TRANSPORTING SCHOOL-AGE
RECREATION PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS AT AN
ESTIMATED COST OF $70,000.00 - TO OBTAIN COST-
Page 349
May 24, 2005
EFFECTIVE AND RELIABLE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
FOR RECREATION PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS - EFFECTIVE
THROUGH APRIL 2006
Item #16D2
AWARD BID #05-3843 FOR FOOD FOR THE SUMMER MEAL
PROGRAM FOR PARKS AND RECREATION TO CHENEY
BROTHERS, INC. AT AN ESTIMATED COST OF $125,000.00-
TO PROVIDE FREE NUTRITIOUS MEALS DURING THE
SUMMER TO COLLIER COUNTY CHILDREN LIVING IN
DISADVANTAGED NEIGHBORHOODS
Item #16D3 Moved to Item #10J
Item #16D4
DEDUCTIVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 11 IN THE AMOUNT OF (-
$1,339,711.79) FOR DIRECT PURCHASE OF MATERIALS FOR
THE NORTH NAPLES REGIONAL PARK, CONTRACT NO. 01-
3189 - TO ACHIEVE TAX SAVINGS BY PURCHASING
MATERIALS FOR USE IN CONNECTION WITH THE NORTH
NAPLES REGIONAL P ARK DIRECTLY FROM THE VENDORS
Item #16D5
DONATED FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,109.36 AND
APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING THE
REVENUE AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR VETERANS
COMMUNITY PARK - TO ENHANCE RECREATION
PROGRAMS THROUGH PRIVATE CONTRIBUTIONS
Item #16D6
Page 350
May 24, 2005
AWARD OF BID #05-3786 VETERINARY SUPPLIES,
MEDICINES, AND DRUGS FOR DOMESTIC ANIMAL
SERVICES DEPARTMENT IN THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL
AMOUNT OF $15,000 FOR SUPPLIES AND $53,000 FOR
MEDICINES AND DRUGS - TO CONTRACT WITH THE
RECOMMENDED A W ARDEES TO ENSURE CONTINUOUS
VETERINARY SUPPLY NEEDS FOR THE DOMESTIC ANIMAL
SERVICES DEPARTMENT SHELTER
Item #16El
FUEL PURCHASES WITH THE GLOBAL-FLEET (VOYAGER)
CREDIT CARD IN EXCESS OF $25,000 ON AN ANNUAL BASIS
- TO PROVIDE EASY ACCESS TO MOST COMMERCIAL
REFUELING SITES DURING EMERGENCIES OR WHEN
COUNTY -OWNED FACILITIES ARE UNAVAILABLE
Item #16E2
SALE AND TRANSFER OF ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
COUNTY SURPLUS AUCTION OF APRIL 9, 2005, RESULTING
IN $490,227.00 IN GROSS REVENUES - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16E3
AWARD BID #04-3714 TO MASSEY SERVICES, INC. AS THE
NEW PRIMARY VENDOR AND TO TERMINATE TERMINIX
INTERNA TIONAL COMPANY FOR ANNUAL PEST CONTROL
SERVICES - DUE TO THE VENDOR'S UNEXPECTED
STAFFING CHANGES, THE AWARDED VENDOR
REQUESTED TO TERMINATE THE AGREEMENT - AVERAGE
Page 351
May 24, 2005
OF $50.000 ANNUALLY
Item #16E4
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER $173,000 FROM
GOVERNMENT SECURITY, PERSONNEL SERVICES TO
GOVERNMENT SECURITY, OTHER CONTRACTUAL
SERVICES TO COVER THE OPERATING COSTS OF
CONTRACT SECURITY SERVICES - TO APPROVE THE
ATTACHED BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING FUNDS
FROM PERSONNEL SERVICES TO OTHER
Item #16E5
FIRST AMENDMENT TO CITY OF NAPLES AIRPORT
AUTHORITY LEASE AGREEMENT NORTH QUADRANT FOR
THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE OPERATIONS FACILITY -
EXTENDING THE CONSTRUCTION START DATE OF THE
SPECIAL OPERATIONS FACILITY FROM JUNE 1,2005 TO
DECEMBER 1. 2005
Item #16E6
UTILIZE THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY
SCHOOL BOARD AND WILLIS, INC. FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
GROUP BENEFIT BROKERAGE AND ACTUARIAL
CONSULTING SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$93.000.00 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16E7
AFTER-THE-FACT SUBMITTAL OF A REVISED HAZARD
Page 352
May 24, 2005
MITIGATION GRANT TO THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY FOR RETROFIT OF COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH
AND PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING H IN AN AMOUNT NOT
TO EXCEED $804,294.00 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16Fl
RESOLUTION 2005-201: SUBMITTAL OF A FLORIDA
BOATING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANT TO THE
FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
COMMISSION FOR THE NEAR SHORE REEF MOORING
BUOYS IN THE AMOUNT OF $125,000.00 - TO IMPROVE
RECREATIONAL BOATING IN THE AREA
Item # 16F2
AWARD BID #05-3769 TO MULTIPLE VENDORS FOR "EMS
EXPENDABLE MEDICAL SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT" - THE
BID AWARD PROVIDES FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE-TIME
USE SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT
Item #16F3
RESOLUTION 2005-202: ADOPTING THE REVISED
COMPREHENSIVE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR
COLLIER COUNTY - TO INCLUDE CHANGES TO PLANNING
REQUIREMENTS, THE ADDITION OF A TERRORISM ANNEX,
AND OUTLINE A STANDARD PLAN FOR A DISASTER
RESPONSE
Page 353
May 24, 2005
Item #16Gl
RESOLUTION 2005-203: AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF
THE MASTER JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT (MJPA)
BETWEEN FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY FOR
FUNDING PROJECTS AT EVERGLADES, IMMOKALEE, AND
MARCO ISLAND AIRPORTS - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16Hl
COMMISSIONER HENNING'S REQUEST FOR PAYMENT TO
ATTEND THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA MARKET TRENDS 2005 CONFERENCE ON MAY 25,
2005 AT THE THREE OAKS BANQUET CENTER IN ESTERO;
$25.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HENNING'S
TRAVEL BUDGET - TO BE HELD AT 20991 THREE OAKS
PARKWAY" ESTERO" FLORIDA
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR PAYMENT FOR
ATTENDING THE EDC TRUSTEE POST-LEGISLATIVE
DELEGATION LUNCHEON ON THURSDAY, MAY 19,2005 AT
THE NAPLES SAILING AND YACHT CLUB; $30.00 TO BE
PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET-
LOCATED AT 896 RIVER POINT DRIVE" NAPLES" FLORIDA
Item #16H3
COMMISSIONER HALAS' REQUEST FOR PAYMENT FOR
Page 354
May 24, 2005
ATTENDING THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA FEDERATED
REPUBLICAN WOMENS CLUB LUNCHEON ON MAY 2, 2005,
AT THE ARBOR TRACE COUNTRY CLUB WHERE HE WAS
THE KEYNOTE SPEAKER. $15.00 TO BE REIMBURSED
FROM COMMISSIONER HALAS ' TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST TO ATTEND THE
MEMORIAL DAY OBSERVANCE BARBEQUE HONORING
AMERICA'S FALLEN HEROES ON MAY 30,2005. $5.00 TO BE
REIMBURSED FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET - TO BE HELD AT 525 111 TH AVENUE NORTH,
NAPLES
Item #16H5
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR PAYMENT FOR
ATTENDING THE AVE MARIA UNIVERSITY'S GRADUATION
RECEPTION AND LUNCHEON ON MAY 7,2005. $45.00 TO BE
REIMBURSED FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET
Item #16H6
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR PAYMENT FOR
ATTENDING, AS A SPEAKER, AT THE RIBBON CUTTING
EVENT FOR THE NEW SCIENCE BUILDING AT
INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE TO INTRODUCE THE
HEALTH/SCIENCE GRADUATE PROGRAM, ON MAY 11,2005.
THERE WAS A LUNCHEON FOLLOWING. $10.00 TO BE
REIMBURSED FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL
Page 355
May 24, 2005
BUDGET - LOCATED AT 2655 NORTHBROOKE DRIVE
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 356
..
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
May 24, 2005
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. 'Clerk of Courts: Submitted for public record, pursuant to Florida Statutes,
Chapter 136.06(1), the disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners for
the period:
1. Disbursements for March 26. 2005 through April 1. 2005.
2. Disbursements for April 2. 2005 through April 8. 2005.
3. Disbursements for April 9. 2005 through April 15. 2005.
4. Disbursements for April 16. 2005 through April 22. 2005.
5. Disbursements for April 23. 2005 through April 29. 2005.
B. Minutes:
1. Collier County Productivity Committee - Minutes of March 16, 2005;
Special Minutes of 7, 2005.
2. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board - Agenda for April 20, 2005;
Minutes of March 16, 2005.
3. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage M.S.T.U. - Agenda for April 27,
2005; Minutes of April 13, 2005.
4. Environmental Advisory Council- Agenda for May 4,2005; Minutes of
March 2,2005; Minutes of April 6, 2005.
5. Vanderbilt Beach M.S.T.U. -_Agenda for May 5, 2005; Minutes for April
7,2005.
6. Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee - Minutes for January 24,
2005.
7. Development Services Advisory Committee - Agenda and Minutes for
April 6, 2005.
a) Budget and Operations Sub-Committee - Agenda and Minutes for
April 13, 2005 '
H:Data/Fonnat
8. Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee - Agenda and
Minutes for January 19, 2005; February 9, 2005; February 23, 2005; and
Unofficial Agenda and Minutes (Quorum not met) for March 9,2005.
9. Collier County Library Advisory Board - Agenda for April 27, 2005;
Minutes of March 30, 2005.
10. Collier County Citizens Corps Advisory Committee - Agenda and
Minutes of April 20, 2005.
11. Collier County Planning Commission -Agenda for May 5, 2005
12. Pelican Bay Services Division - Agenda for May 4,2005; Minutes of
April 6, 2005. Statement of Revenues and Expenditures.
a) Clam Bay Sub-Committee - Minutes of April 6, 2005.
b) Budget Sub-Committee - Minutes of April 20, 2005.
C. Other:
1) Guy L. Carlton. Collier County Tax Collector - 2004-2005 Budget
Amendment.
2) Caribbean Gardens Blue Ribbon Committee - Minutes of March 15, 2005.
3) Collier County Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting - Minutes of
May 29, 2005.
H:Data/Format
May 24, 2005
Item #16J1
EXTENSION OF BYRNE GRANT 2005-CJ-K3-09-21-01-042
FROM SEPTEMBER 30,2005 TO DECEMBER 31,2005 TO
ALLOW ADDITIONAL TIME FOR THE CLERK OF COURTS
TO TEST REQUIRED SOFTWARE
Item # 16J2
USE OF CONFISCATED TRUST FUNDS FOR CRIME
PREVENTION PURPOSES - THE COLLIER COUNTY
SHERIFF'S OFFICE IS HOSTING A SUMMER CONFERENCE
ON JULY 24 - JULY 27,2005 FOR TRAINING TO STAY
CURRENT AND PROACTIVE ON ISSUES RELATED TO LAW
ENFORCEMENT
Item #16J3
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 16,2005 THROUGH APRIL 29,2005 SERVE AS A VALID
PUBLIC PURPOSE AND AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF
COUNTY FUNDS TO SATISFY SAID PURCHASES
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2005-23: PETITION SE-2005-AR-7410;
AMENDING 05-22, SCRIVENER'S ERROR FOR CORRECTION
OF LANGUAGE CONTAINED WITHIN SECTION 6.6.B OF THE
APPROVED TRIAD PUD DOCUMENT TO CLARIFY THE
Page 357
May 24, 2005
RENTAL RESTRICTION FOR THE PUD, FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST~ COLLIER COUNTY~ FLORIDA
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2005-204: SE-2005-AR-7412; AMENDING
RESOLUTION NUMBER 03-223, PERTAINING TO THE
VANDERBILT PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH CONDITIONAL
USE, TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR DUE TO
OMISSION OF AN ACCURATE MEASUREMENT IN THE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE CONTAINED WITHIN
EXHIBIT "B"; AND BY PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2005-205: (THIS ITEM CONTINUED FROM THE
MAY 10, 2005 BCC MEETING) APPLYING THE ANNUAL MID-
CYCLE INDEXING ADmSTMENTS 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
FORAN EFFECTIVE DATE OF JULY 1~ 2005
Item #17D
RESOLUTION 2005-206: AMENDING STEWARDSHIP
SENDING AREA 3 ("BCI SSA 3") IN THE RURAL LANDS
STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT (RLSA),
Page 358
May 24, 2005
DESIGNATING 248.9 ACRES THEREIN AS BCI SSA 3A,
APPROVING A CREDIT AGREEMENT FOR BCI SSA 3A AND
ESTABLISHING THE NUMBER OF CREDITS GENERATED BY
THE DESIGNATION OF SAID STEWARDSHIP SENDING AREA
("BCI SSA 3A")
Item #17E
RESOLUTION 2005-207: AMENDING STEWARDSHIP
SENDING AREA 5 ("BCI SSA 5") IN THE RURAL LANDS
STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT (RLSA),
DESIGNATING 651.3 ACRES THEREIN AS BCI SSA 5A,
APPROVING A CREDIT AGREEMENT FOR BCI SSA 5A AND
ESTABLISHING THE NUMBER OF CREDITS GENERATED BY
THE DESIGNATION OF SAID STEWARDSHIP SENDING AREA
("BCI SSA 5A")
Page 359
May 24, 2005
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 8:36 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
~w.~
FRED W. COYLE, Chalffi1an
ATTESJ';,
DWfGHTß~~ROCK,CLERK
.~ :.:..:..., "
, ~ ",
, .
(~·Àfttst..a~::tb·Cha run's
'j "'ttirt· OR 1 J.
These minutes approved by the Board on -!f 11 0 áJ'ii". &®5, as
presented....--- or as COlTecte .
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 360
, --,~_...~,..,..-