BCC Minutes 06/14/2005 R
June 14, 2005
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, June 14, 2005
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such
special district as has been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9: 00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Fred W. Coyle
Frank Halas
Tom Henning
Donna Fiala
Jim Coletta
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Derek J ohnssen, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
June 14, 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 WISffiNG 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
June 14,2005
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 A V AILABLE 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. May 10,2005 - BCC/Regular Meeting
C. May 11, 2005 - BCC/LDC Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. Advisory Committee Service Awards
1) Presentation of the Advisory Committee Outstanding Member Award
to Russell A. Budd, Collier County Planning Commission.
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation to designate the Week of June 13 through June 17,2005 as
Code Enforcement Officers' Appreciation Week. To be accepted by
Michelle Arnold.
5. PRESENTATIONS
Page 2
June 14,2005
A. Presentation by 1,000 Friends of Florida to the Board of the Community
Steward Award.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request by Donnie McDowell to discuss development,
adoption and implementation of a zoning overlay for Copeland.
B. Public Petition request by Richard Y ovanovich to discuss redesignation of
properties - Rural Fringe.
C. Public Petition request by Wesley Ceeley to discuss Code Enforcement
violation notice for property damage.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1 :00 D.m.. unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt an
Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances, as amended by Ordinance No. 2001-13 (The Collier County
Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, as amended) providing for the adoption
of a Law Enforcement Impact Fee with a delayed effective date of August 1,
2005.
B. This item reauires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. SRA-04-AR-6896,
Alan D. Reynolds of Wilson Miller, Inc., representing New Town
Development, LLLP, requesting a designation of a Stewardship Receiving
Area (SRA) Application for 5,027 acres of land pursuant to the regulations
of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Zoning Overlay District to
allow for a mix of residential neighborhoods, a mixed-use town center, a
Community Facilities District, medical office, wetland preserve areas and
parklands, public and private schools and a university. Companion Item:
DRI-04-AR-6293
C. This item reauires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. DRI-04-AR-6293, New
Page 3
June 14,2005
Town Development, LLP, represented by George L. Varnadoe ofCheffy,
Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson, requesting approval of a Development Order
for the Town of Ave Maria Development of Regional Impact (DRI) to allow
for a mix of residential neighborhoods, a mixed-use town center, a
Community Facilities District, medical office, wetland preserve areas and
parklands, public and private schools and a university. Companion Item:
SRA-04-AR-6896
D. Recommend that this item be continued to the June 28. 2005 BCC
Meetin2:. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure be provided bv Commission members. RZ-2003-AR-
4961 Southern Development Company, Inc. represented by JeffL.
Davidson, P.E., of Davidson Engineering, Inc., requesting a rezoning from
"A" Rural Agricultural and "C-2ST" Commercial Convenience with a
Special Treatment overlay zoning districts to "C-3" Commercial
Intermediate zoning district for property known as Home Center Plaza
located East of the US 41 and SR 951 intersection, further described in
Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. This
property consists of 6.07+ acres.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Habitat Conservation Plan Ad Hoc
Committee.
B. Recommendation to declare a vacancy on the Immokalee Local
Redevelopment Advisory Board.
C. Appointment of member to the Environmental Advisory Council.
D. Appointment of members to the Contractors' Licensing Board.
E. Appointment of member to the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development
Agency.
F. Commissioner Halas request for discussion to direct County Attorney to
proceed toward filing suit to determine legal ownership of easements along
Vanderbilt Beach.
Page 4
June 14,2005
G. Request to reconsider Bembridge PUD, PUDZ-A-5998. (Commissioner
Henning. )
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to consider a request to authorize the Collier County
Engineering Review Department to evaluate the quantity and quality of
economically feasible limerock and hard rock aggregate within the limits of
Collier County and prepare a report to the Board with recommendations as
to where hard rock mining should be allowed by the Comprehensive Plan.
(Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development and
Environmental Services)
B. Recommendation to Approve Selection of Qualified Firm and Award a
Contract Under ITN 05-3583 "CEI Services for Collier County Road
Projects" for Project No. 60169 "Rattlesnake-Hammock Road Six-Laning
Project from Polly Avenue to Collier Boulevard" in the amount of
$2,517,581.00. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
C. To provide a status report of the special master process approved by the
Board of County Commissioners in 2004. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Community
Development and Environmental Services Administrator)
D. Recommendation to approve the Collier Metropolitan Planning
Organization's (MPO) Operating Budget for FY 2005/06 ($449,834 in new
federal and local funding), including $9,233 County match to the Federal
planning grants received by the MPO. (Norman Feder, Administrator,
Transportation Services)
E. This item continued from the May 24. 2005 BCC Meetin2:.
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.
(Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
F. Recommend Approval of Tourist Development Category "A" Grant
Applications from the City of Naples, City of Marco Island, Collier County
Environmental Services, Collier County Parks and Recreation, Pelican Bay
Services District and the Collier County Tourism Department for Beach
Renourishment and Maintenance and Beach Park Facilities for Fiscal Year
Page 5
June 14, 2005
2006 In The Total Amount of$3,508,775. (Jack Wert, Director, Tourism)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. This item to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. Recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners Give Direction to Outside Counsel (Garvin & Tripp,
P .A.) and the Office of the County Attorney Concerning the Settlement
Offer Required by Section 70.00 1 (4)(c), Fla. Stat., in Response to the
Purported Bert Harris Act Claim Asserted by Van-Dev, Inc. and Vanderbilt
Beach Associates, Ltd. - the Alleged Owner(s) of the Vanderbilt Beach Inn
Property .
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of each
item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will be
removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve Petition A VESMT2004-AR5649 to
disclaim, renounce and vacate the County's and the Public's interest
in a portion of the Drainage and Maintenance Easement Agreement
conveyed to Collier County by separate instrument and recorded in
Official Record Book 2866, Pages 2889 through 2904 and all of the
Drainage and Maintenance Easement Agreement conveyed to Collier
County by separate instrument and recorded in Official Record Book
3357, Pages 2709 through 2718, Public Records of Collier County,
Florida. Located in the Valencia Lakes Subdivision in Section 23,
Page 6
June 14, 2005
Township 48 South, Range 27 East.
2) Recommendation to approve the Release and Satisfaction of Lien for
the following cases: Frank L. and Laura S. Olszewski 2004-64; Fred
P. and Norma J. Kowalke 2004-37; Helen Stormer 2004-71.
3) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to sign a ten year
cooperative grant agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
for funding habitat restoration on Conservation Collier properties to
not exceed $250,000 over a ten-year period.
4) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to sign a resolution
appointing and authorizing the Community Development and
Environmental Services Division Administrator or the Environmental
Services Department Director to execute permit applications and other
documents pertaining to Environmental Services Department Projects.
5) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Sussex
Place", approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
6) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Mediterra
Phase Three East, Unit Two", approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
7) Recommendation to approve awarding Bid #05-3808 for Waterways
Maintenance to Naples Dock and Marine Services for an annual
contract estimated at $30,000.
8) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Edison
Village", approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security
9) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Elsy Moreno and Aldemar Solarte for 2 parcels totaling 2.73
acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a
cost not to exceed $88,000.
Page 7
June 14, 2005
10) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Asfa Sill and Aleka Sill for 2.73 acres under the Conservation
Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $32,850.
11) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Gloria Goddard for 1.59 acres under the Conservation Collier
Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $30,850.
12) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Royal
Palm Golf Estates Replat #3", approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
13) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Fiddler's
Creek Phase 5, Aviamar Unit One", approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
14) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC)
approve a budget amendment of up to $300,000 in FY05 Budget tax
increment financing (TIF) funds for the services of a consultant to
assist with the preparation of a revised Immokalee Area Master Plan
(lAMP) and a new rural land development code zoning overlay for the
Immokalee Urban Area. THIS IS A COMPANION ITEM TO 16Gl
- Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency
(CRA) recommend to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC)
that the BCC approve a budget amendment of up to $300,000 in FY05
Budget tax increment financing (TIF) funds for the services of a
consultant to assist with the preparation of a revised Immokalee Area
Master Plan (lAMP) and a new rural land development code zoning
overlay for the Immokalee Urban Area.
15) Recommendation to allow County staff to administratively issue
Vegetation Removal and Site Filling permits and certain Excavation
permits as required for Lely Resort (Lely Resort PUD) located in
Sections 21, 22, 27, 28, 33, and 34, Township 50 South, Range 26
East.
Page 8
June 14, 2005
16) Recommendation to approve a Sea Turtle License Plate Grants
Program grant agreement from the Caribbean Conservation
Corporation for the Environmental Services Department's Sea Turtle
Public Awareness Program.
17) Recommendation to approve an application for participation in the
Advanced Broadband Infrastructure Investment Program by Naples
Diagnostic Imaging Center, Ltd. for two (2) site locations.
18) Recommendation to approve the application by Mobile Internet
Technologies, LLC for the Job Creation Investment Program, the
Advanced Broadband Infrastructure Investment Program and the Fee
Payment Assistance Program.
19) Recommendation to approve a previously approved Budget
Amendment that funds the County's portion of the Tomasello
Consulting Engineers, Inc. Change Order No.1.
20) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution amending the Collier County
Administrative Code Fee Schedule of development-related review and
processing fees as provided for in Code of Laws Section 2-11.
21) Recommendation to authorize the transfer of funds in the amount of
$5967.50 from General Ledger Revenue Account 113 to Community
Development Fund 131.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to award Bid #05-3805-S for preparation and
delivery of Title Commitments and Real Estate Closing Services.
2) Recommendation that the Board accept a donation from WCI
Communities, Inc. up to the amount of $73,000.
3) Recommendation to approve in Interagency Agreement between
Collier County and the State of Florida Department of Corrections,
Hendry Correctional Institution, for continued use of inmate labor in
Road Maintenance Activities.
Page 9
June 14, 2005
4) Recommend Board's approval of Adopt-A-Road Agreement: Club
Cultural Dominicano "Dominican Culture Club" .
5) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the issuance ofa Right-of-Way (ROW) permit creating a designated
parking area within the ROW on a specific segment of Capri
Boulevard.
6) Recommendation that the Board approve amending Resolution No.
2001-226 and the Landscaping Installation and Maintenance Highway
Agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
within the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida which
authorizes the Chairman to expand the boundaries of the existing US
41 North Phase I and II agreement and Resolution No. 2001226 to
include US 41 North Phase III from Vanderbilt Beach Road to
Immokalee Road.
7) 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.
8) Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition by
gift or purchase 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 six-lane
expansion of Goodlette- Frank Road from Pine Ridge Road to Golden
Gate Parkway. (Capital Improvement Element No. 88, Project No.
60005). Estimated fiscal impact: $100,000.00.
9) Recommendation to approve a Work Order in the amount of
$618,829.00 to D.N. Higgins, Inc. for the Twin Lakes Interconnect
Project (Project #510054), in accordance with the General
Underground Utility Contract No. 04-3535.
10) Recommendation to approve expenditure of$148,000 to Florida
Power and Light (FPL) for streetlighting improvements on the south
side of Immokalee Road from US 41 to I-75, Project No. 66042B.
11) Recommendation to award Collier County Bid #05-3686 Golden Gate
Beautification MSTU/MSTD Roadway Grounds Maintenance to
Page 10
June 14,2005
Advanced Lawn & Landscaping Service, Inc. with a base amount of
$242,654.40 and Irrigation bid alternate of $44, 120.00 for a total of
$286,774.40.
12) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment for a total of
$73,300 requested by the Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage MSTU
for Road and Drainage Improvement Projects.
13) Recommendation to award Bid #05-3686 Radio Road Beautification
MSTU/MSTD Roadway Grounds Maintenance to Advanced Lawn &
Landscaping Service, Inc. with a base amount of $99,298.00 and
Irrigation bid alternate of$16,400.00 for a total of$115,698.00.
14) Recommendation to approve Amendment No. 03 to Contract No. 03-
3473 with HDR Engineering, Inc. -"Consultant Services for
Preparation of a Land Development Overlay for Bayshore/Gateway
Triangle Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) District"
supplementing civil engineering design and surveying services in the
amount of $207,795, and to approve a budget amendment in the
amount of $40,000.00 for the Gateway Triangle Drainage
Improvement Project, Project Number 518032.
15) Recommendation to approve a Work Order in the amount of
$414,458.00 to Haskins, Inc. in accordance with Contract No. 04-
3535 Underground Utility Contracting Services and to approve a
budget amendment in the amount of $65,458.00 for the Farm Workers
Village Project (Project No. 517012).
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to approve amendment No.3 to Work Order No.
GH-FT-02-3; Professional Utilities Engineering Services Agreement
with Greeley and Hansen LLC for the Wellfield Design and
Permitting of the South County Water Treatment Plant Reverse
Osmosis Well field Expansion to 20 Million Gallons Per Day, Project
708921 and Contract 00-3119 in the amount of $97,024.00.
2) Approve Work Order A WP-FT-05-02 not to exceed $50,000.00 to
Above Water PR/Marketing for public information campaign for the
Non-Residential Recycling Ordinance No. 2004-50.
Page 11
June 14,2005
3) Recommendation to award Contract #05-3739 for hazardous waste
collections to Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. as the
primary contractor and EQ Florida, Inc. as the secondary contractor in
the amount not to exceed $315,000 per year.
4) Recommendation to approve an amendment to an existing agreement
between Collier County and the South Florida Water Management
District whereby the County will conduct additional surface and
ground water monitoring in the Picayune Strand Restoration area in
return for $132,000 to be paid to the County by the South Florida
Water Management District.
5) Recommendation to award Contract #05-3815 for the purchase of two
front end loaders to replace two skid loaders for the recycling centers
to Kelly Tractor Company in the amount of $164,784 and
maintenance contract for on site service not to exceed $1,900 per year.
6) Recommendation that the Board Approve the Cooperative purchase
from Sarasota County Contract #2002-002 to retain services of Angie
Brewer Associates (ABA) in the estimated annual amount of
$249,000 to provide assistance in the acquisition of low cost State
Revolving Fund (SRF) loans.
7) Recommendation to award Contract 05-3661 "Fixed Term Disaster
Debris Management, Removal and Disposal Services" to three (3)
firms. Annual cost is dependent on number and severity of disaster
events occurring during the fiscal year.
8) Recommendation to award Bid #05-3826 for the purchase and
delivery of emulsion polymer in the estimated annual amount of
$180,000 for the Wastewater Department.
9) Recommendation to approve an alternative water and sewer impact
fee calculation and the resulting rate of 26 gallons per day per seat for
the proposed Carrabba's Italian Grill in the Freedom Square Shopping
Center.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
Page 12
June 14,2005
1) Recommendation to approve a revised Letter of Agreement with the
Agency for Health Care Administration for an additional $500,000 to
receive an additional $87,500 through use of the Upper Payment
Limit program.
2) Recommendation to modify the award of bid #05-3843 for food for
the summer meal program for Parks and Recreation to allow for the
addition of non-specified items.
3) Recommendation to approve FY 03 and FY 04 annual reports to the
Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles for the
Choose Life Specialty License Plate.
4) Recommendation to approve the award ofRFP # 05-3823 to Health
Force, Accu-Care, Home Instead, Right at Home, Heaven Sent, Care
Club of Collier County and Millennium House to provide adult day
care and in-home care services for the Human Services
Department/Services for Seniors Program. The estimated annual
budget is $625,000.
5) Recommendation to approve an interlocal agreement with the City of
Naples to fund construction of the Pulling property boat ramp facility
in an amount not to exceed $400,000
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve the award of Bid No. # 05-3809 to
TruGreen Landcare, for "Grounds Maintenance for Government
Complex," in the amount of$76,884.
2) Recommendation to accept 625.28 acres from the South Florida Water
Management District as partial settlement of commitments made by it
and the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of
the State of Florida to the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners under Agreement dated October 8, 2003.
3) Recommendation to authorize the expenditure of$3,851.67, resulting
from the Board's October 26, 2004 approval of agenda item l6E(3),
to reclassify certain county employment classifications from exempt
to non-exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Page 13
June 14,2005
4) Report and ratify Property, Casualty, Workers' Compensation and
Subrogation Claims settled and/or closed by the Risk Management
Director pursuant to Resolution # 2004-15 for the second quarter of
FY05.
5) Recommendation to award a work order (#VC-02-25) under Contract
#02-3349 for "Golden Gate ADA Improvements" in the amount of
$139,300 to Wm. J. Varian Construction Company.
6) Recommendation to approve a contract change with Vanderbilt Bay
Construction to allow for the direct material purchase of pre-cast
concrete for the Vanderbilt Beach Parking Garage, project 90295, and
avoid $72,000 in taxes.
7) That the Board of County Commissioners approve expenditures for
vehicle and equipment towing services in excess of $25,000 annually
under RFQ #04-0335, "24-Hour Towing Services".
8) Recommendation to award Bid # 05-3837 "Retrofit Elevators in
Building F (Administration Building)" in the amount of $172, 176 to
KONE Elevators and Escalators for the retrofit of elevators in the
Harmon Turner Administration Building.
9) Recommendation to approve change order number one (l), to contract
04-3576, "Annex Parking Garage", Project 52010, with Kraft
Construction Company, Inc. for the direct material purchase of the
pre-cast concrete panels to save $168,132 in taxes.
10) Report and ratify staff-approved change orders and changes to work
orders to Board-approved contracts.
11) Recommendation to approve a software services agreement with M/ A
COM, Inc. for continued software support of the 800 MHz radio
system at an annual cost of$7l,250
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommend Approval of Work Order #CPE-FT-05-03 to Contract
#01-3271 County/City of Naples Beach Renourishment Construction
Page 14
June 14,2005
Phase Biological Monitoring Scope of Work and Fee Proposal in the
amount of $839,865.40.
2) Recommend Approval of Work Order #CPE-FT-05-02 to Contract
#01-3271 with Coastal Planning and Engineering for Beach Physical
Survey for the 2005 County/City of Naples Beach Renourishment
Project 90527 for the amount of$88,374.30
3) Recommendation to approve the use of the Florida Sheriffs' Statewide
Contract for the purchase of two (2) fire engines by the Ochopee Fire
Control District and approve a lease/purchase agreement between
Collier County and E-One, Inc in the amount of $329,286.
4) Recommendation to approve the submittal of the Ochopee Fire
Control District's application for a matching (50/50)grant offered by
the Florida Division of Forestry, accept the grant award and approve
the necessary budget amendments to recognize and appropriate
revenue in the amount of$15,877.30.
5) Recommendation to approve the submittal of the Ochopee Fire
District's application for a Volunteer Fire Assistance matching (50/50)
grant offered by the Florida Division of Forestry, accept the grant
award and approve the necessary budget amendments to recognize
and appropriate revenue in the amount of $9,988.50.
6) Recommendation to approve a Resolution to update user fees for
Collier County ambulance services, which Resolution supersedes and
replaces Resolution No. 2004-231.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
recommend to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) that the
BCC approve a budget amendment of up to $300,000 in FY05 Budget
tax increment financing (TIF) funds for the services of a consultant to
assist with the preparation of a revised Immokalee Area Master Plan
(lAMP) and a new rural land development code zoning overlay for the
Immokalee Urban Area. THIS IS A COMPANION ITEM TO ITEM
l6A14 -Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
Page 15
June 14,2005
(BCC) approve a budget amendment of up to $300,000 in FY05
Budget tax increment financing (TIF) funds for the services of a
consultant to assist with the preparation of a revised Immokalee Area
Master Plan (IAMP) and a new rural land development code zoning
overlay for the Immokalee Urban Area.
2) Approve a budget amendment for $22,100 to increase budgeted
revenues and budgeted expenses for the sale and purchase of aviation
fuel at Immokalee Regional Airport.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous Items to File for Record with Action as Directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To present to the Board of County Commissioners the State Revenue
Sharing Application for Fiscal Year 2005-2006 and to obtain approval
for the Chairman to sign the Application.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$28,000 to transfer funds from Fund 652 Reserves to its operating
budget to fulfill the County's annual obligation to Legal Aid
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Approve a
Mediated Settlement Agreement and a Stipulated Final Judgment to
be Drafted Incorporating the Same Terms and Conditions as the
Mediated Settlement Agreement Relative to the Acquisition of Parcel
111 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Norma E. Banas as
Trustee, et al. Case No. 02-5l37-CA (Immokalee Road Project No.
60018). Additional Cost to County is $37,756.00 After Credit for
Amount Deposited.
3) Recommendation to approve the Offer of Judgment in the amount of
$16,500.00 as to Parcel 103 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Page 16
June 14, 2005
Ocean Boulevard Partnership, et aI., Case No. 04-4300-CA
(Immokalee Road Project 66042). (Fiscal Impact $3,196.00)
4) Recommendation to approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement and
Stipulated Final Judgment in the amount of $78,000.00 for Parcel
Nos. 142, 742A, 742B, and 942 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Parkway Community Church of God, et aI., Case No. 03-2374-CA
(Golden Gate Parkway Project 60027). (Fiscal Impact $32,509.20)
5) Recommendation to approve the Stipulated Final Judgment in the
amount of$12l,972.00 for Parcel Nos. 141,841, and 143 in the
lawsuit styled Collier County v. Primera Iglesia Cristiana Manantial
De Vida, Inc., et aI., Case No. 03-2372-CA (Golden Gate Parkway
Project 60027). (Fiscal Impact $31,285.16)
6) Request by the Housing Finance Authority of Collier County for
Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Authority to Issue Multi-
Family Housing Revenue Bonds to be Used to Finance the
Acquisition and Rehabilitation of the George Washington Carver
Apartments in Naples.
7) Request by the Housing Finance Authority of Collier County for Re-
Approval of Resolution Authorizing the Authority to Issue Multi-
Family Housing Revenue Bonds to be Used to Finance a Qualifying
Apartment Proj ect.
8) Request by the Collier County Health Facilities Authority for
Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Authority to Issue Revenue
Bonds for Healthcare Facilities at Moorings Park.
9) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
Compliance Agreement with respect to eighty-three (83) citations
issued to Joseph Deroma, between October 3, 2000, and July 16,
2003, filed in Collier County Court, and direct the County Attorney
Office to file a Notice of Dismissal in each case as set forth in the
Compliance Agreement.
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
Page 17
June 14,2005
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2004-AR-6l92:
Toll Brothers, Inc., represented by Christopher Hagan, of Johnson
Engineering, Inc. and Richard Y ovanovich, of Goodlette, Coleman &
Johnson, requesting a rezone from the Rural Agriculture (A) and
Community Facility (CF) zoning districts to the Residential Planned Unit
Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as the Cook
Property PUD. A total of 160 single- or multi-family units or some
combination of both are proposed on 40.48 acres. The property is located at
7700 and 7792 Davis Boulevard, approximately 1,700 feet east of Santa
Barbara Boulevard in Section 9, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida.
B. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and Ex Parte
Disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to
approve Petition A VROW2004-AR6443 to disclaim, renounce and vacate
the County's and the Public's interest in a portion of the road right of way
for Church Avenue which was dedicated to the County by the plat of "Bay
Park," as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 61, Public Records of Collier
County, Florida, and to accept a 15 foot wide drainage easement. Located in
Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East.
C. Recommendation to adopt a resolution designating 9,911.1 acres in the
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay District (RLSA) as Stewardship
Sending Area 6 ("BCI/BCP SSA 6"), approving a credit agreement for
BCI/BCP SSA 6 and establishing the number of Stewardship Credits
generated by the designation of said Stewardship Sending Area in response
to an application by Barron Collier Investments, Ltd. and Baron Collier
Page 18
June 14, 2005
Partnership.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
Page 19
June 14,2005
June 14, 2005
MR. MUDD: You have a live mike, sir.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats. We'll do
the prayers and that, and it will be -- it will be here by then.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I just wanted people to
understand it's time for us to start this meeting. Weare a little bit late
because we're waiting for some additional information to be presented
to us. It will be here shortly, so Donna Fiala's going to tell you a few
jokes while we're waiting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My first joke is that I'm sitting next
to you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's a very good joke. I like that joke.
We can do some preliminary things before we get into the
meeting itself. So let us begin with the invocation by County
Manager Jim Mudd, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please stand. Let
us pray.
Our Heavenly Father, we ask your blessings on these proceedings
and all who are gathered here. We ask a specially blessing on this
Board of County Commissioners, guide them in their deliberations,
grant them the wisdom and vision to meet the trials of this day and the
days to come.
Bless us now as we undertake the business of Collier County and
its citizens, that our actions will serve the greater good of all citizens
and be acceptable in your sight. Your will be done, amen.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, before we start the Pledge of
Allegiance, I think it's very appropriate today that we put some
emphasis in the pledge that it just isn't words today because this is
Flag Day.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And with respect to the flag, many of
you have probably seen the flags at half staff throughout the county.
Page 2
June 14, 2005
They are lowered to half staff in honor of former mayor, Naples
Mayor Bonnie McKenzie who passed away last week.
We now have our agenda changes, Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. David, do you have any -- well, David
hasn't seen them yet. So let me go through this particular list then
we'll go back to David.
Agenda changes, Board of County Commissioners' meeting, June
14th, 2005.
Item #2A
REGULAR CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
Item 8B, which is SRA-04-AR-6896, the Town of Ave Maria.
The first change in this Item is the replacement of an old
memorandum with a new memorandum that provides the future land
use element consistency review, pages 33 through 47 of the BCC
agenda. This memo contains the final staff determination for
consistency with the GMP.
The second change replaces the draft SRA resolution with the
revised SRA credit agreement document, and that's pages 155 to 160
of the BCC agenda, and that's at staffs request.
The next Item is Item 8C. It's DRI-04-AR-6293, the Town of
Ave Maria. This change is the replacement of the draft DRI resolution
with the revised DRI resolution that reflects the CCPC, that's the
Collier County Planning Commission recommendations, and that's
page 56 through 103 of the BCC agenda, and that's at staffs request.
And all of those particular Items were provided to the Board of
County Commissioners prior to this meeting.
Next Item is to move Item 16A17 to 10H, and that's a
recommendation to approve an application for participation in the
Page 3
June 14, 2005
Advanced Broadband Infrastructure Investment Program by Naples
Diagnostic Imaging Center, Limited, for two site locations, and that --
and that movement to the regular agenda is at Commissioner
Henning's request.
The next Item is to move Item 16A19 to 10I, and that's a
recommendation to approve a previously approved budget amendment
that fund the county's portion of the Tomasello Consulting Engineers,
Inc., change order number one. And that -- again, that was moved to
the regular agenda at Commissioner Henning's request.
The next Item is Item 16D5. That's a recommendation to
approve interlocal agreement with the City of Naples to fund
construction of the Pulling property boat ramp facility in an amount
not to exceed $400,000. We're adding an attachment to the Pulling
Landing Park site plan which shows the motorboat access points, and
that's at staffs request.
Next Item is to move Item 16E2 to lOG, and that's a
recommendation to accept 625.28 acres from the South Florida Water
Management District as partial settlement of commitments made by it
and the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of
the State of Florida to the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners under agreement dated October 8th, 2003, and
Commissioner Coletta asked that this Item be moved to the regular
agenda.
The next Item is Item 16G2. Under recommendation in the
executive order -- the executive summary, excuse me. Under
recommendation in the executive summary, it refers to the Marco
Island Executive Airport rather than the Immokalee Airport, and it
should be the Immokalee Airport, so that's at staffs request.
Item 16F6, the next to last sentence in the title of resolution
included in the packet should read, superseding resolution number
2004-231 rather than resolution number 03-244. The original prepared
for the chairman's signature is correct, and that's at staffs request.
Page 4
June 14, 2005
Next Item is to move Item 16K6 to 12B, and that's a request by
the Housing Finance Authority of Collier County for approval of a
resolution authorizing the authority to issue multifamily housing
revenue bonds to be used to finance the acquisition and rehabilitation
of the George Washington Carver Apartments in Naples, and that
movement to the regular agenda was requested by Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I could, Mr. Mudd, I since
then got the answer I needed to my question. I had great concerns
because it referenced a year of2011, five and a half years from now,
and I was scared that affordable housing would disappear at that time.
I have since receive an e-mail from Mr. -- Attorney Pickworth,
and it states, the Internal Revenue Code requires that once taxes and
bonds are issued by the Housing Finance Authority for the George
Washington Carver Apartment Acquisition and Rehabilitation, it must
remain affordable housing for as long as the bonds are outstanding, for
a minimum of 15 years, even if the bonds are paid off early.
This is required to be recorded in the public records as a
conveyance against the land. This conveyance, which only comes
about because the HF A is issuing taxes on bonds, is in the public's
primary assurance that the project will remain as affordable housing.
The 15-year minimum is opposed (sic) by the statutes and cannot
be changed even if the parties want to remove the affordable
restriction, and not even the authority itself can remove the affordable
restriction. This is the difference between the authority financing and
the other types of affordable deal-only authority issue bonds. The
project must remain as affordable housing for the next 15 years
minimum.
And with that statement read into the record, I have no more
objections, and I withdraw my request to have that moved from the
consent agenda.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Then Item 16K6 stays on the consent
Page 5
June 14, 2005
agenda unless another commissioner wants to move it to 12B. Okay.
16K6 is on the consent agenda.
The next Item is to move 16K9 to 12C. It's a recommendation
that the Board of County Commissioners approve a compliance
agreement with respect to 83 citations issued to Joseph Deroma
between October 3rd, 2000, and July 16th, 2003, filed in Collier
County court, and direct the county attorney's office to file a notice of
dismissal in each case as set forth in the compliance agreement, and
that was at Commissioner Fiala's request, not at staffs request.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And I'm sorry to interrupt you,
Mr. Mudd, but I have further investigated this and spoken with the
county attorney's office, and they say that the other case has also been
settled to their satisfaction, so I will keep it on the consent agenda.
MR. MUDD: 16K9 stays at the consent agenda.
Next Item is to move Item 17A to 8E. This Item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members.
It's PUDZ-2004-AR-6192, Toll Brothers, Inc., represented by
Christopher Hagan of Johnson Engineers (sic) Inc., and Rich
Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman, and Johnson, requesting a rezone
from the rural agricultural A and community facilities CF zoning
district to the residential planned unit development, RPUD, zoning
district for a proj ect to be known as the Cook Property PUD.
A total of 160 single- or multifamily units of some combination
of both are proposed on 40 plus four eight acres (sic). The property is
located at 7700 and 7792 Davis Boulevard, approximately 1,700 feet
east of Santa Barbara Boulevard in Section 9, Township 50 south,
Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida, and this is -- and this move to
the regular agenda is at Commissioner Coletta's request.
A note, next Item. The board is approving Item 16G 1 as the
eRA before approving 16A14 as the BCC. This is one of those things
where you're wearing both hats, and so I just note that, because as you
Page 6
June 14, 2005
approve the consent agenda, you're also approving that -- the sequence
of those particular Items.
And we do have one time certain Item, Mr. Chairman, and that's
12A. This Item to be heard at 11 a.m. It's a recommendation that the
Board of County Commissioners give direction to outside counsel,
Garvin and Tripp, P .A., and the office of the county attorney
concerning the settlement offer required by section 70.001, parens 4,
parens C, of Florida Statutes in response to the purported Bert Harris
Act claim asserted by Van-Dev Inc., and the Vanderbilt Beach
Association, Limited, the alleged owners of the Vanderbilt Beach Inn
property .
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr.
Mudd.
County Attorney? Yes, Sue.
MS. FILSON: I have two speakers registered to speak under
rental registration fee, and I don't know which Item that is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That is not on the agenda today, but they
could speak under --
MS. FILSON: Public comment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- public comment. Public comment,
unfortunately, is at the end of the meeting.
Who are the people who wish to speak about this Item?
MS. FILSON: Donna Langsford and Susan--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are they here now? No, I -- well, if they
-- if you can recognize them when they come in, we will have to
inform them what the schedule will be for public speakers. They
might not wish to stay all day to talk about that. If those are the only
public speakers we have registered today, we might be able to take
them earlier.
MS. FILSON: I have two others.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
Page 7
June 14, 2005
MS. FILSON: So far.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners.
One further note you may wish to consider is that Item 8D in the
regular agenda index indicates, recommend that the Item be continued
to the June 28th meeting. You may wish to take care of that, if that is
your intention, now at the agenda revision part and add that to your
change list for continuation now as opposed to bringing it up in the
normal course of the meeting in case there is anyone here to hear that
Item. That's 8D.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, 8D.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 8D?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, D as in dog.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, a continuance was at the petitioner's
request. It was advertised for today's meeting. The petitioner has a
meeting with the surrounding homeowners' association and is going to
try to resolve some -- I believe a contentious issue prior to it being
held at the next board meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, without objection by any
commissioners, then we can modify the agenda to reflect this
continuance to June 28th, 2005. Do any of the commissioners object
to that?
MR. MUDD: If we could have a motion on that so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 8
June 14, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is approved unanimously.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. And Mr. Chairman, I would ask that
either Jim in his resonant voice, or I, in fact describe that as well as the
Item number, which we've just done right here so that the record --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. The continuance was Item 8D. It's a
recommendation that the Item be continued to the June 28th, 2005,
BCC meeting, and it was unanimously approved to be continued by
the board just minutes ago.
This Item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members. It's
RZ-2003-AR-4961, Southern Development Company, Inc.,
represented by JeffL. Davidson, P.E., of Davidson Engineering, Inc.,
requesting a rezone from "A" rural agricultural and C-2 ST
commercial convenience with a special treatment overlay zoning
district to C-3 commercial immediate zoning district for property
known as Home Center Plaza, located east of the U.S. 41 and State
Road 951 intersection, further described in Section 3, Township 51
south, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida. This property consists
of 6.07 plus or minus acres.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Anything else, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: No, that's it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Very well. I'm going to ask the
commissioners for any other questions or comments concerning the
summary and consent agenda and for ex parte disclosure on the one
Item that remains for the summary agenda. Bear in mind that Item
1 7 A has been pulled to the regular agenda, and we'll have ex parte
Page 9
June 14, 2005
disclosure at that point in time.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't have any disclosures on
17B, and I don't have any changes at this time on today's consent
agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No other change on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commission Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I have nothing to declare
on the summary agenda, and I have no additional changes to make to
the regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I believe that I spoke to
somebody on 1 7B in my office. They were just asking if I had any
concerns with that, and also even though it wasn't directly related, I've
spoken to many people about the Stewardship Sending Areas over the
time just in researching Ave Maria and so forth, so I'll just include that
just for the sake of covering all bases.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to place Item
16A19 back to the consent agenda, and that's the recommendation to
approve a previously approved budget amendment for the budget
amendment that the funds of the county portion of Tomasello
Consulting Engineers change order number one. I think I'll talk about
that under commissioners' comments.
And I have no ex parte communication on today's summary
agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
And I have no further changes to the agenda, and I have no ex
parte disclosures for the remaining Item on the summary agenda.
Page 10
June 14, 2005
Do we hear a motion to approve the agenda --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- as changed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion 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.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimously approved.
Page 11
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
June 14. 2005
Item 8B (SRA-04-AR-6896 The Town of Ave Maria): The first change in this item is
the replacement of an old memorandum with a new memorandum that provides
the Future land Use Element Consistency review (pages 33-47 of the BCC
Agenda. This memo contains the final staff determination for consistency with
the GMP. The second change replaces the draft SRA resolution with the revised
SRA Credit Agreement document (pages 155-160 of the BCC Agenda). (Staff's
request.)
Item 8C (DRI-04-AR-6293 The Town of Ave Maria): This change is the replacement
of the draft DRI Resolution with a revised DRI Resolution that reflects the CCPC
recommendations (pages 56-103 of the BCC Agenda). (Staff's request.)
Move Item 16A17 to 10H: Recommendation to approve an application for
participation in the Advanced Broadband Infrastructure Investment Program by
Naples Diagnostic Imaging Center, ltd., for two (2) site locations. (Commissioner
Henning's request.)
Move Item 16A19 to 101: Recommendation to approve a previously approved
Budget Amendment that funds the County's portion of the Tomasello Consulting
Engineers, Inc., Change Order No.1. (Commissioner Henning's request.)
Item 16D5: Recommendation to approve an interlocal agreement with the City of
Naples to fund construction of the Pulling property boat ramp facility in an
amount not to exceed $400,000. (Adding attachment, Pulling landing Park site
plan, which shows the motor boat access points.) (Staff's request.)
Move Item 16E2 to 10G: Recommendation to accept 625.28 acres from the South
Florida Water Management District as partial settlement of commitments made by
it and the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of
Florida to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners under Agreement
dated October 8, 2003. (Commissioner Coletta's request.)
Item 16G2: Under Recommendation in the Executive Summary, it refers to the
Marco Island Executive Airport (rather than Immokalee airport). (Staff request.)
Item 16F6: The next to last sentence in the title of the Resolution included in the
packet, should read: "Superseding Resolution No. 2004-231" (rather than
Resolution No. 03-244"). The original prepared for the Chairman's signature is
correct. (Staff request.)
Move Item 16K6 to 12B: Request by the Housing Finance Authority of Collier
County for approval of a Resolution authorizing the Authority to issue Multi-
Family Housing Revenue Bonds to be used to finance the acquisition and
rehabilitation of the George Washington Carver Apartments in Naples.
(Commissioner Coletta's request.)
Page 2
Agenda Changes
June 14, 2005
Move 16K9 to 12C: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
approve a Compliance Agreement with respect to eighty-three (83) citations
issued to Joseph Deroma, between October 3, 2000, and July 16, 2003, filed in
Collier County Court, and direct the County Attorney Office to file a Notice of
Dismissal in each case as set forth in the Compliance Agreement. (Staff's
request.)
Move Item 17A to 8E: This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2004-AR-6192; Toll
Brothers, Inc., represented by Christopher Hagan of Johnson Engineering, Inc.,
and Richard Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, requesting a rezone
from the Rural Agriculture (A) and Community Facility (CF) zoning districts to the
Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project to be
known as the Cook Property PUD. A total of 160 single or multi-family units or
some combination of both are proposed on 40.48 acres. The property is located
at 7700 and 7792 Davis Boulevard, approximately 1,700 feet east of Santa Barbara
Boulevard in Section 9, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida. (Commissioner Coletta's request.)
Note: The Board is approving Item 16G1 as the CRA before approving 16A14 as
the BCC.
Time Certain Items:
Item 12A: This item to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. Recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners give direction to outside counsel (Garvin & Tripp, P.A.)
and the Office of the County Attorney concerning the Settlement Offer required by
Section 70.001(4){c), Fla. Stat., in response to the purported Bert Harris Act Claim
Asserted by Van-Dev, Inc. and Vanderbilt Beach Associates, Ltd. - the alleged
owner{s) of the Vanderbilt Beach Inn property.
June 14, 2005
Item #2B & #2C
MINUTES OF THE MAY 10, 2005 BCC REGULAR MEETING
AND THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 11, 2005 BCC/LDC
MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Now we need a motion to approve the May 10th, 2005, BCC
regular meeting minutes and the May 11th, 2005, BCC land
development code meeting minutes.
Is there amotion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Halas.
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, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's unanimous. Thank you.
With that, Mr. Mudd, I think we go to service awards for our
employees.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. If you could just -- sometimes you get up
and you come to the front, but today if you'd just keep your seats.
Item #3
Page 12
June 14, 2005
SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD
MEMBER)
3A is -- 3A1 is a presentation of the Advisory Committee
Outstanding Member Award to Russell A. Budd, Collier County
Planning Commission. Mr. Budd is not here today; he's out of town.
1'd like to continue this Item to be the first Item tomorrow at your
workshop at nine o'clock. Mr. Budd will be here, and we can present
that award to him at that particular time, if that would be all right with
the Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSION HENNING: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Henning, 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 is unanimous. Thank you very much.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF JUNE 13
THROUGH JUNE 17, 2005 AS CODE ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER'S APPRECIATION WEEK - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 4A,
proclamations, and we only have one proclamation today, and that's a
proclamation to designate the week of June 13th through June 17th,
Page 13
June 14, 2005
2005, as Code Enforcement Officers' Appreciation Week, to be
accepted by Michelle Arnold.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Looks like it's going to be a lot more
than Michelle Arnold. Okay, blue shirts, come on down. We'll get
you standing up here in front. Get the short ones in front and the tall
ones in the rear so everyone can be seen.
Do we have everybody here now?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, I believe so.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm going to read this
proclamation.
Whereas, code enforcement officers provide for the safety,
health, and welfare of the citizens in this community through
enforcement of the building, zoning, housing, animal control,
environmental, and other codes and ordinances; and,
Whereas, code enforcement officers deserve recognition for the
jobs that they do in protecting lives and improving neighborhoods, as
do emergency personnel, such as police, fire, and emergency medical
services; and,
Whereas, every day, assisted by support and program staff, they
provide quality customer service to the public for the betterment of the
community; and,
Whereas, too many times their efforts go unnoticed, even after
compliance has been accomplished due to their efforts and expertise;
and,
Whereas, the personnel of the code enforcement department are
dedicated, well-trained, and highly responsible individuals who take
their jobs seriously and are proud of their department and the local
government within which they serve; and,
Whereas, the Florida Association of Code Enforcement, FACE,
has declared the first week of June to be set aside by local government
to honor and recognize their code enforcement department staff.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Page 14
June 14, 2005
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of June 13th
through 17th, 2005, be designated as Code Enforcement Officers'
Appreciation Week in Collier County in accordance with the
statewide observance of the same, and encourage citizens of Collier
County to join this commission in expressing appreciation for the
dedication and outstanding service provided by the individuals who
serve as our code enforcement officers.
Done and ordered this 14th day of June, 2005, Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, Fred Coyle, Chairman.
Commissioners, I make a motion that we accept this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Gee, you know, I'm standing on the dais,
and I'm still not as tall as some of these guys.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Code Enforcement Week, does
that mean they get to take the week off?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Michelle, it's all yours now.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes. Well, I just wanted -- if you guys can just
stay there for a few minutes.
I just wanted to thank the commissioners for accepting this, or
presenting this proclamation. These individuals in front of you all do a
Page 15
June 14, 2005
very difficult job on a day-to-day basis.
We don't only have code enforcement investigators in front of
you, we have our customer service as well as our supervisors, and they
take the brunt of a lot of abuse, and they don't go appreciated very --
too often.
And I just want to say how proud I am of every individual that's
standing before you, and I really appreciate your -- their efforts and
you recognizing them today. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN. COYLE: Thank you for ajob well done. Thank
you, all of you, very, very much.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You guys work so hard for us.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, Michelle.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION BY 1,000 FRIENDS OF FLORIDA TO THE
BOARD OF COMMUNITY STEWARDS AWARD - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to presentations. It's
5A, and it's a presentation by 1000 Friends of Florida to the Board of
Community Stewards. It's a -- excuse me again. It's a presentation by
1000 Friends of Florida to the board from the -- it's a community
steward award.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And who is going to present this?
MR. PATTISON: Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the
commission. My name's Charles Pattison. I'm the executive director
of 1000 Friends of Florida. We're a statewide nonprofit growth
management group, and we've been around since 1986 to help
promote better growth management in Florida.
With me today is Steve Pfeiffer, one of our board members, and
he'll be making some comments in just a moment.
Page 16
June 14, 2005
What we'd like to do and have done since 1990 is make
presentations to individuals, local governments around the state that
have shown innovation in addressing some tough growth management
projects and issues.
We are fortunate this year to have several great sponsors. Those
include the law firms, Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart, and Shipley;
Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson, and Johnson, LLP; and the Florida Home
Builders Association.
Steve's going to make some comments, and then we'll get to the
presentation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. PFEIFFER: We are pleased to announce the Collier County
Rural Lands Stewardship Plan is receiving 1000 Friends of Florida's
2005 Better Community Award. This award is presented for plans
that have been implemented and proj ects which are completed that use
the principles of smart growth to create livable, vital environments.
I have been involved in growth management and land use issues
for many years. The things that I like -- the thing that I like about
these fields is that growth management involves so many vital
interests and goals that frequently conflict, resolving conflicts between
goals to accommodate future population growth, for example, and also
environmental protection.
It is very difficult -- it's a very difficult thing to accomplish.
When it is accomplished, it feels very good. And this program, this
plan that has come from Collier County to me meets that -- meets that
goal and that principle.
The board of 1000 Friends of Florida was very impressed with
the exceptional partnership that brought about this plan that included
diverse interests and included a process that was open and that
recognized the vitality and importance of all the different points of
VIew.
It provides a valuable tool for you and for Collier County to
Page 1 7
June 14, 2005
promote sustainable development in rural Collier County.
We were impressed especially with -- that you will enable the
accommodation of future growth in a manner that uses much less land
than what would ordinarily be required for that level of population,
but that also allows the preservation of tens of thousands of acres of
land for important environmental functions, including wildlife habitat
and other environmental functions.
So you're joining a select group. This award has been given to
local governments, in the Town of Surfside in Miami-Dade County,
which has very aggressively sought to protect its moderate density,
residential character in the face of efforts to condominiumize all of
Dade County, the City of West Palm Beach for its wonderful
downtown redevelopment program, the City of Jacksonville, which
has probably the most aggressive local government land acquisition --
environmental land acquisition programs in the nation, and now
Collier County for the rural stewardship plan, so we're delighted to be
here, and delighted that actually on your agenda today are some pieces
of the rural stewardship plan program, and we're proud to present this
award to you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MR. PATTISON: Chair, if I could, we again just wanted to
recognize this was a team project that took a lot of good hard work
from not only the commission and your leadership, but quite an--
quite an impressive group of public citizens. If I might just recognize
the ones that we know are in the audience, and we'll apologize if we
forget someone.
From the Citizens' Oversight Committee, Barbara Berry, Ron
Hamil, and Nina Spagna; from eastern Collier property owners, John
Alexander with Alico, Bob Bogart with Alico, Blake Gable with
Barron Collier Companies, and George Varnadoe, one of our sponsors
with Cheffy, Passidomo law firm; and from the community
participants, of course, Nancy Payton with the Florida Wildlife
Page 18
June 14, 2005
Federation.
I did give Dolly Roberts with WilsonMiller some additional
materials on 1000 Friends if you were interested in that, and we have
some additional copies of our press release.
At this time then I'd like to ask Chairman Coyle, Tom Jones with
eastern Collier Property Owners' Association, and Alan Reynolds with
WilsonMiller to come forward so we can present the award.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Where do you want me? Usually I'm the
one asking.
MR. PATTISON: Wherever we can get the best picture.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. We really appreciate the
chance to be here. We hope your model will be followed around the
state. There's a lot of interests that we know of, and we wish you every
success as you continue on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is the portable mike on? I'd like to say
something about this program.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you set the timer?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. And I'll say it up here with
you guys.
For the members of the public, it's important that you understand
that this was a cooperative effort of property owners, developers, land
planners, conservationists. A group of people with different
backgrounds and different interests got together several years ago and
began to work together rather than working against each other, and
they achieved some remarkable results.
This program, combined with our rural fringe program, has
permanently protected at least 100,000 acres of environmentally
sensitive land in Collier County. It has also stopped urban sprawl.
Development in this area will be largely restricted to specific
designated areas that are not environmentally sensitive. And this
Page 19
June 14, 2005
development will be constructed in relatively compact areas in
self-contained communities that will hopefully reduce the traffic
congestion on our roads and serve our communities better, and these
rural villages will also consist of required affordable housing
development.
So what has been accomplished here by this coalition of
representatives from different interests is really remarkable, and it has
defined the future of development in Collier County in a way that I
think is going to serve the best interests of the citizens of Collier
County.
And I really would like to thank these people and the people who
have been involved, and recognize former Commissioner Barbara
Berry who's here today who participated in this process.
Barbara, raise your hand so we'll know -- everybody will know
where you are.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So thanks to all the people who helped
get this done. It's really a wonderful thing, and I hope it sets a model
for what we do in the future. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We really appreciate the
presentation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That brings us to public petitions,
I think.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY DONNIE MCDOWELL TO
DISCUSS DEVELOPMENT, ADOPTION AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF A ZONING OVERLAY FOR
COPELAND - STAFF TO BRING BACK WITH
RECOMMENDATIONS
Page 20
June 14, 2005
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. The first public petition is 6A. It's a
public petition request by Donnie McDowell to discuss development
adoption and implementation of a zoning overlay for Copeland.
MR. McDOWELL: Good morning. Thank you all for giving me
this chance to speak. My name is Donnie McDowell, for you all who
don't know me and didn't hear Coyle say it, I guess.
I'm the president of the Copeland Civic Association, and the
association got started probably about two years ago. And since then
we've accomplished quite a bit.
Now we're going through some zoning changes that we wanted to
do, and we also had talked about an overlay. If -- we got some maps
here if you all don't know exactly what area we're talking about.
And we have -- come in front of you today to ask maybe that you
all will help us with some direction of which way to go from now.
We've got terribly confused since the pre-op meeting that we
scheduled quite some time ago.
At that time everybody sat around the big table and, you know,
discussed of what we wanted to do and how to do it and who all had
problems and what we were going to do.
And now since then, which was just almost two years ago, we've
come back to the big table again, and everybody has changed
everything, so we're really kind of confused and we really need some
direction from the commissioners and maybe have you all appoint us a
planner to work directly with us so we don't get this problem again.
I'm not sure you all know much about Copeland or how much
you know, but since we've started this program of -- started a civic
association, we have, like I said, accomplished quite a bit there. And
if we don't get this here zoning changes and stuff done, we can't
continue with some of the plans that we have for Copeland.
I heard you Commissioner Fred (sic) there, with the concerns
there you had with the environment, stuff like that, and we're in that
same area. We're in the middle of environments all the way around
Page 21
June 14, 2005
us, and we would like to have the zoning change just change a certain
amount which won't affect the environment issues and stuff.
Weare contained, more or less, in our area, like you said there a
while ago, and we would like to -- you all give us some direction of
what -- if you have any questions or something on which way to help
me or -- I'd sure appreciate --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. First I want to recognize
the work of the Copeland Civic Association. I've never seen a group
come together so quick and do so much with so few people, and I
think Donnie's been one of the prime examples of why it's worked.
He's one of the best civic leaders I've ever met in my life.
And this project has been the glue that's held Copeland together
and brought it together. They've cleaned up their community, they got
rid of some serious drug problems. They feel very good about
themselves. They need the ability to be able to use their lots from
what they're restricted now.
They have an overlay placed on them some years ago that
inhibited it so much that, to try to do anything on those lots is next to
impossible because of the setbacks and the requirements.
We were hoping to get that changed. That's one of the reasons
why Donnie's here, he ran against an obstacle, and Joe Schmitt could
probably answer this for us so that we know what's possible. What
can be done in the shortest amount of time and the least money
possible to be able to get this accomplished, Joe?
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Community
Development/Environmental Services Division Administrator.
As Donnie knows, certainly my staff has been working with the
folks in Copeland probably for up to two years. If we want to get into
details here, we certainly can discuss this. This was, unfortunately, a
complicated issue having to do with an amendment to the compo plan.
David Weeks can talk about that because it was a conversion of
Page 22
June 14, 2005
some previous-zoned areas to conservation. The CDBG dollars are
spending $15,000 from CDBG. They hired a consultant to pay for this
to amend the portions of Copeland having to do with the changing of
the zoning designation.
If you want more details on that, we can provide that today, but
it's going to get into details. But we've been working on this. We're
moving along with that.
What I understood today's petition was going to be was, they
wanted to do something further than what is being done to correct the
administrative problems in regards to the existing zoning in Copeland,
and I thought Donnie was going to talk about more specific overlay
situations like allowing for crab traps and some of the other type of
things within the zoning district.
But we're well on our way moving along in regards to what needs
to be corrected with this current situation.
Now, what has happened is there are areas in Copeland certainly
-- or you're surrounded by areas of critical state concern. What has
happened is the area that we needed to change is part of the compo
plan. The folks from Copeland have expanded that into an area of
critical state concern, so some of that may require now an additional
environmental impact study analysis.
So that's -- that's where we are now. And if you want to talk
about the details of this, I certainly can have David come up and give
the history on this, and we have a planner appointed; Mike DeRuntz of
my staff has been working with the folks in Copeland, as well as the
entire CD BG staff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Joe, we're not here to try to solve this
problem today. This is merely a decision as to whether or not we'll
bring it back for a regular -- for a full hearing, okay? That's the only
decision we need to make, so we need only the necessary information
to permit the commissioners to decide whether or not it's worth
bringing back and placing on an agenda.
Page 23
June 14, 2005
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, if I could correct the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I didn't mean to cut you off, but go
ahead. We don't want to --
MR. SCHMITT: You're going to see this anyway as an agenda
Item in regards to the zoning correction.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that's only part of the --
MR. SCHMITT: That will come back as a normal amendment
cycle process. So just so you understand, if we bring it back, we can
give the history on it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, let's suppose that we can solve
both problems. Can we combine this issue with that particular
hearing, that is, can we -- can we extend that particular zoning issue to
go beyond what it is currently defined as to address the concerns of
the people in Copeland?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, but I'm not sure what they're asking for
right now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But they'll let you know that
before we get to that point, right?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that right? Is that okay with you?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's excellent. That's basically
what I was going to propose. It's just a question of keeping this
moving forward. The residents of Copeland, which a number of them
are here today in the audience -- and I appreciate them taking the time
off from work to be here -- are very concerned about this, and they'd
like to see something going forward.
And I -- if we can have this come back to us possibly in
September, I think that would be absolutely excellent.
MR. McDOWELL: Yeah. We would like to come back to you.
We'd like -- we had a planner come down to our meeting, and all the
way to Copeland, drove the 35, 40 miles down, and came down,
which was Ray Bellows, and he also -- we was trying to figure out
Page 24
June 14, 2005
which way to go with this. Was an overlay our way to go or was it --
what was that other thing -- amendment, and he wanted us to go with
the overlay, so that's why we proceeded this way. Now we've run into
these problems.
But what happened is some years ago, somebody with the county
moved this conservation line and zigzagged it up through like 14
different pieces of property instead of going straight up a zoning line,
and that's where this problem has come into. And people in Copeland
have been struggling over years trying to get permits and stuff, and
nobody knew this was having these problems. We kind of wondered
why Joe was building his house and all of a sudden he quit, you know.
And we're trying to -- he run into these problems.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Joe, you were building a house down
there?
MR. McDOWELL: Well, I was just using Joe as a name, you
know, you know. So he -- he ran into a problem. When the civic
association got started and formed and we all came together, and then
we all started talking about problems and things people had, and this --
which we crossed a red line, is the zoning line that needed to be
moved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, Commissioner Halas, you
have a question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think we covered it in
regards to -- because I was going to ask him what the whole area
encompassed for an overlay, and it looks like everything in white and
everything else up there?
MR. McDOWELL: No. Yeah, the map on the right there, just
the part you see there --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. McDOWELL: -- is the rezoning that we need to do for the
-- get the conservation off of us. Which you see how it was zigzagged
through the properties instead of going straight up a line of some kind
Page 25
June 14, 2005
of way of taking in property easements, they went and zigzagged
through 14 different pieces of property.
And like I said, back when Joe went to get his permit, he couldn't
get one because he was split between two different zonings, and he
couldn't do it, and a real problem -- and we've researched, tried to find
out how this happened. Somebody in the county decided to make them
lines go that way. So this has been a real problem.
And then also back to some of the things real quick, let me tell
you this, is back almost 15 years ago, we met with the county
commissioners at Port of the Islands. They all came down there and
met with us. And we all -- hundreds of people from Chokolosee,
Plantation, and Copeland, and this 10-year growth management plan
was coming out at that time, and they exempted us from this 10th year
plan coming up, so they knew Copeland needed some growth.
And we could only grow so big anyway because we're
surrounded with park. We have Fakahatchee Strand all the way
around Copeland, and on the other side of the road over there is Big
Cypress Preserve, so we can only expand so big, and we're not asking
-- and most of the land all around Copeland has already been disturbed
land, and for quite some miles around Copeland was all farmland at
one time or another.
So we're not asking to rezone or change any virgin lands.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think we have staff support on the
commission to have this combined with our next hearing on the
zoning issue. And if we could -- maybe if you could provide -- Joe, if
you could get with the Copeland representatives and get enough
information so we'll know what we have to address in this hearing,
that would be helpful. And maybe we can address it at the same time
you have the zoning issue brought to us, okay?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, Commissioner. If I could ask again for
guidance. You said September. I don't know by then if we'll be
through the public hearings for the rezoning, so would you -- are you
Page 26
June 14, 2005
looking for us just to come back with a status report on what the entire
issue is?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think -- I think what
Commissioner Coletta wants to do is make sure that maybe the zoning
issue doesn't get decided until you take into consideration what the
people of Copeland --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, no, no. I don't want to stop
the zoning issue. That's only part of the total problem. I was hoping
we could run something else in parallel to it. If the zoning issue's
going to come back late September, early October or all the way to the
following year, that's too long to wait to be able to make sure we got
the rest of this solution coming.
This is a place where affordable housing can go if we can remove
these obstacles. Copeland's a wonderful place to live. It's a little
preserve -- or a little place to live in the middle of a wonderful
wilderness. People love it there, and I'm sure we're going to attract a
lot of families with kids and be able to help Everglades City school
system too, which has a reclining enrollment by making these
changes.
I'm not too sure. I just -- I need something to happen in a
reasonable period of time and make sure that we're moving forward on
this issue in a positive way.
And Mr. Schmitt, I don't care if we bring it back or if we handle
it as a separate Item, that -- either way I can live with it, just so we
keep everything going forward and we can bring it to a conclusion in
the least amount of time possible.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay. Because Donnie and my staff are
working -- been working together on this for months, and so I'm
somewhat confused as to what you're asking.
Just so you understand, this is part -- this will be part of an LDC
amendment cycle. It has to go through all the perfunctory steps, the
planning commission and the Board of County Commissioners, the
Page 27
June 14,2005
hearings and all that. If you want this to come back as a special cycle,
then, of course, we'll have to come back and address that and ask the
board to approve a special cycle, which would be another special
cycle for this year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You mean stand alone, or it
would be put in with something else? I mean, we'd have --
MR. SCHMITT: It depends on what your direction is. If you
want this as a special cycle, as part of a special cycle for amendment
cycle -- and as you know, we have -- we do two cycles a year we --
and I'm not quite clear right now whether or not this will even be
ready for the fall cycle in regards to an LDC amendment, so that's all
part of this process we've been working to get everything together to
make this happen.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I make a suggestion, Mr.
Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is that we sit down and we take
a look at all the possibilities, and maybe we might be able to have a
small report ready for the commission to show them a couple
directions that we can go, and then ask their guidance --
MR. SCHMITT: That's what I would suggest--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- maybe at the next meeting.
MR. SCHMITT: -- I come back with a report. And I think it's--
Commissioner, I'll get on your calendar and we'll get with the folks
from Copeland and my staff so you understand the complexities and
all the issues that are involved in this in regards to both the zoning
designation changes that need to be made plus the additional -- any
other additional requirements, so you have an understanding of the
steps we have to go through in the public meetings that we have to go
through in regards to this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we gave sufficient
direction. I thank you so much, Mr. Schmitt.
Page 28
June 14, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, Commissioner Coletta, I
think probably the best way you could rectify a lot of the problems is
meet with Joe and the people from Copeland and sit down and figure
out what your game plan is. I think that's the best way.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that's basically what we
just said, but I wanted to get it in front of the commission.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I think that's the best way is
you, as the commissioner, sit down with that and, I think, can hammer
out something, and then maybe you or Joe can later on report. But I
think that's the first way you got to do is everybody get together at the
table and figure out exactly what you want to accomplish.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'll give you progressive
reports as we get into this during commissioner comments at each
meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. What's our next Item then?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 6B --
MR. McDOWELL: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Donnie.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY RICHARD YOV ANOVICH TO
DISCUSS REDESIGNATION OF PROPERTIES (RURAL FRINGE)
- TO BE BROUGHT BACK AT A FUTURE BCC MEETING FOR
FURTHER DISCUSSION
MR. MUDD: -- is a public petition request by Richard
Y ovanovich to discuss redesignation of properties in the rural fringe.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning, Commissioners. Rich
Y ovanovich.
What I wanted to talk to you about today is a provision in the
Page 29
June 14, 2005
comprehensive plan that was adopted when the rural fringe
amendments went through the process.
As you will recall, when the rural fringe amendments went
through the process, there were several property owners who appeared
at the adoption hearing and questioned whether or not it was
appropriate for their properties to be designated sending lands.
In response to the concerns of those property owners, the
commission adopted a provision that provided that for all properties
designated sending lands where such property is contiguous to either a
receiving land or a neutral land, the county will provide written notice
to the property owners and advise of the opportunity to change the
property.
The process was intended to work where the property owner
would have to go out and get their environmental analysis of the
property, there would be a one-time amendment cycle to the
comprehensive plan to allow these property owners to come before the
Board of County Commissioners and present their case as to why they
should not be designated sending lands.
I have three clients who entered into that process. They went
through the expense of hiring environmental consultants, did an
environmental analysis, and submitted the information to county staff.
Staff was busy with a lot of things. And around March and
April, notices or letters started coming in as to what staffs opinion
was of the data that was submitted for these property owners and
others. There are other property owners similarly situated to my
clients.
And I noticed two responses that we got from county staff. First,
instead of looking at the data on a property basis, which is what the
comprehensive plan requires, they looked at it as an individual parcel
basis. And let me give you -- let me explain what that means.
If I owned a single parcel that was 80 acres, they considered my
single parcel as an 80-acre property and looked at the data and
Page 30
June 14, 2005
analysis for the entire 80 acres.
If I had acquired the property over a period of time by purchasing
individual parcels, they only looked at the individual parcels, and only
those individual parcels that were contiguous were considered.
I don't understand the rationale for that, especially since the
compo plan says you're going to look at this on a property basis.
It's no different whether I, Rich Y ovanovich, owned 80 acres
before the adoption of the compo plan by acquiring six parcels or I was
fortunate enough to find one 80-acre parcel. It doesn't matter. It's still
one property. Those were the people who were appearing before you
at the time questioning what was going to happen to their property,
and that's how the comprehensive plan was written.
What ended up happening is I have one client who county said,
okay, you had basically three properties that they considered to be
contiguous, and the other three parcels they said were not contiguous
so they didn't look at the data and analysis for those three parcels, and
on those other three, they either agreed with the data and analysis or
they didn't agree.
If they didn't agree with the data and analysis, they advised my
clients that they had -- this would not move forward to the Board of
County Commissioners, that staff determination was the final
determination, unless my clients were willing to sponsor a private
sector comprehensive plan amendment and pay the $16,000 fee that
goes along with staying in the process.
There's two problems with that. One, I don't believe that that's
fair. I think that the Board of County Commissioners is the people to
ultimately decide whether or not our data and analysis was sufficient.
Staff is saying to those who they decided they agreed with the
data and analysis that we still had to go to the Board of County
Commissioners, and the Board of County Commissioners will make
the ultimate decision.
You may decide that staff was incorrect in recommending
Page 31
June 14, 2005
approval. We're requesting the same opportunity, that we be able to
present our information to you, and maybe you decide that staff is
incorrect in determining that we shouldn't be redesignated.
So we disagree with staff on two things, one, looking at it on a
parcel-by-parcel basis, and two, not giving us the opportunity to go
forward to the Board of County Commissioners to have the board
ultimately decide whether or not our data and analysis was sufficient.
I will let you know that these three individuals are essentially
farmlands that have been cleared lands, and we believe that there is
sufficient data and analysis to support a redesignation. We'll
hopefully get into that when this goes forward.
Also, by the time we received the notices that staff didn't agree
with us, it was virtually impossible for us to scramble to get together a
comprehensive plan amendment to make it into this cycle. We were
notified in March and April, and the deadline to submit an application
was the fourth Friday in April to make that application, and we'd have
a pre-app meeting and a whole lot of things that we just physically
couldn't get it done in time when we received the letters.
So what we're requesting, and I'm assuming you're going to want
to get into greater detail than what I explained, and hear staffs side of
the story, is we're requesting that you put on a future agenda a
discussion about how to deal with the property owners who did
provide the information to county staff and did receive rejection letters
from county staff as to the data and analysis, and also rejection letters
based on not being, quote, contiguous to either sending -- I'm sorry --
either sending or receiving lands, neutral or receiving lands.
And with that, that's the summary I have for what we're
requesting. We hope you will put this on a future agenda so we can
get into greater detail.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I -- while I have concerns
over some of the suggestions, especially about the contiguous lots and
Page 32
June 14, 2005
how it's set up American Farms, for example, which owns quite a
holdings through there -- a lot of them are five-acre individual lots,
and this was part of the understanding for some time.
Some of them purchased 40-, 80-acre lots, and they're only
allowed one house per five acres of record or -- excuse me, one house
per record, lot of record, up to 40 acres. After that, you know, it's
every 40 acres they get to have one.
So it's kind of a -- it does limit them, but that was part of the
process when we got to it; however, there are things that I do have
concerns, and I would like to see this come back sometime in
September, October, or whenever we have an opening where we can
hear the whole thing out totally and make sure that there isn't
something we missed. Maybe some oversight might be needed. I'm
not saying it is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any other commissioners have
questions or comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there enough support to have this
brought back?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can we get some input from staff
in regards to this? Maybe they could give us a little insight so that we
can get kind of a flavor of both sides here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
MR. SCHMITT: Again, for the record, Joe Schmitt,
administrator of Community Development/Environmental Services
Division.
Rich is essentially correct. This is -- let me boil this down to one
process. You as a board, do you want to hear all the appeals or do you
not?
What happens is Rich applies, staff evaluates, and some of it's
based on parcel, some of it's based on lot, and those that staff denied is
Page 33
June 14, 2005
-- basically ends the process. What Rich is asking is, he wants another
bite at the apple basically to bring it before you.
Those that we approved will come to you under the normal
growth management plan amendment process to convert those
elements in the future land use map that indicate these lands as
receiving lands or neutral lands or -- wait a minute. I'm backwards.
You're going from sending to receiving.
So these -- you're asking -- what Rich is basically asking is, for
all of the petitions, you're going to hear the ones that staff approved,
but if staff denies, Rich still wants another shot, basically you as an
appellate authority, and there's nothing in the regulations that say that.
So that's fundamentally what he's asking.
The second and probably really important piece of this is, you're
directing staff to allow for late submittals, and we'll deal with that in
regard to late submittals for GMP amendments. So we can bring this
back.
We'll have to discuss all the pros and cons and so you have an
understanding of this parcel versus lot issue and the impact or maybe
the unintended consequences that this may have, because as
Commissioner Coletta and I discussed, it is a significant chunk of land
and it may impact the entire availability of the entire inventory of
TDCs out there basically in regards to sending lands.
But we can bring all that back and discuss that. But the
fundamental piece here is, you will become the -- basically the
appellate data authority for those that we deny.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Actually I'm asking you to follow
through with the normal comprehensive plan process staff. Normally
there's a staff recommendation of yay or nay or comprehensive plan
amendment, and both sides present the case to the Board of County
Commissioners, when staff recommends denial of a compo plan
amendment, which in the last cycle they did on one of them, the case
was argued before the Board of County Commissioners, and the Board
Page 34
June 14, 2005
of County Commissioners decided the case. We're asking a stay in the
process.
And I'd have to say that it's a little bit of an overdramatization
that we're talking about a ton of land that's going to affect the sending
land designation. I think we need to bring all that information to the
board so we know just how many acres we're really talking about.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas, did you have a --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just quickly. You're saying they
want to change sending lands to receiving lands?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no, not all of them. Some are sending
to neutral, some applies to either neutral or receiving. It depends on
what you're adjacent to.
MR. SCHMITT: That's what -- the process was set up when the
rural fringe mixed use district was established. Those were the rules
that were publicly vetted during the GMP amendment process. And
certainly we debated these many years ago, two years ago when -- two
and a half years ago when this process was set up. So what Rich is
basically asking for is a change in that process, and we will take your
direction.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioners, there are two
issues here. Number one is, we're being asked to change our
procedures. It appears to me that we must make that decision before
we take up an individual petition to change the classifications.
So you have a comment to make?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I don't -- I'm not asking you to
change your procedure. I'm asking you to have a discussion about,
what does the comprehensive plan say, and decide whether or not the
staff is correct in the procedures, is that the procedures you intended,
or did they misinterpret the comprehensive plan? And I would hope
that we would have that discussion as an agenda Item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And if you have that discussion
Page 35
June 14, 2005
as an agenda Item, the outcome of that discussion --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Will impact --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- will then determine what we do with
Mr. Y ovanovich's case. We won't even consider changing the
designation in the first hearing. Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct, absolutely correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So that clarifies, I hope, the issue. So I
think we need to take a look at the procedure and see if our staff is
interpreting the procedure correctly. If they are, that's the end of this
Issue.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If they're not, then we'll have to either
make a decision to change the procedure so it's clear --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and then we'll have an opportunity to
hear a petition from someone who objects to the earlier disapproval by
staff.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Coyle, those petitions would be
heard as then -- if you rule, those petitions would be heard as part of
standard growth management plan amendments --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: -- through the appeal process rather than
through a private application, which is what Rich is --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there sufficient sentiment on the board
to schedule this for a hearing where we will discuss the procedure
itself?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sometime in the fall, I would say.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very well.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No further.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Fall of2008.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was hoping 2005, but --
Page 36
June 14, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Six.
MR. SCHMITT: What meeting do we want to look at doing this,
in July or --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In the fall.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This isn't time sensitive.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Pick a time -- pick a time that is
available, and when we have some time on an agenda.
MR. SCHMITT: We'll book it in the September agenda, one of
the September or October meetings then.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you need a formal motion for this,
Mr. Mudd?
MR. SCHMITT: I'm fine with it, your direction.
MR. MUDD: You're going to bring it back. I suggest that you
have a vote on it, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion to
bring this back for purposes of evaluating the procedure itself. That is
a motion I have made.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it's seconded by Commissioner
Coletta.
All in -- is there any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Absent.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, by like sign.
(N 0 response.)
Page 37
June 14, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It carries unanimously.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Item #6C
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY WESLEY CEELEY TO
DISCUSS A CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATION NOTICE OF
PROPERTY DAMAGE - TO BE BROUGHT BACK AT A
FUTURE BCC MEETING WHILE PUTTING ASIDE CURRENT
CODE ENFORCEMENT FINES
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next public petition is public
petition 6C. It's a public petition request by Wesley Ceeley to discuss
code enforcement violation notice for property damage.
MR. CEELEY: Commissioners, this is highly visual. I'm not
sure how you'd like me to set this up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Maybe take it over there and we'll put it
on that board, okay.
Mr. Ceeley, also, just for clarification, you understand that we
won't take action on this Item today. We'll just need enough
information to understand what you want us to consider, and then
we'll decide whether we schedule it for public hearing, okay?
MR. CEELEY: Yes, I understand that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Okay. Mr. Ceeley, it's all yours now.
MR. CEELEY: Okay. I'm here today because of code
enforcement citing that there's a violation to the private property that
my family's owned for 40 years, and there's never been any problem
with the property. It is environmentally protected.
Kirsten Szuch, who's the officer, she went on a call unrelated,
resolved that call, saw that there was damage to our property. And
Page 38
June 14, 2005
upon the last four months of looking into the situation, talking to all
members of staff pretty much that are involved in the situation, I was
able to pull up -- first of all, do you guys understand the location of
the property? It's Richards Road and Immokalee Road. It's about five
miles past I-75.
If you could pull that down, you can -- the whole argument here
is that Collier County was clearing the property across the street,
across Richards Road from our property. There's a retention pond to
the right, and there's the widening of Immokalee Road to the top of the
property.
So we have county activity on two sides of our property. I have
an actual date for that photo, which puts the county in there.
Obviously if you look at the photo, you can see there's clearing for the
retention pond, there's the widening of Immokalee Road. It's two
sides of our property that there's county activity. There's never been
any activity on our property in 40 years, and what I'm trying to do --
the action I'd like you guys to take is to have transportation, code
enforcement, somehow resolve the situation within the county.
We obviously have no reason to clear it. We don't have any TDR
value. We don't have any value to it right at the moment other than
going out and purchasing TDRs. We are under 40 acres. We can't get
a PUD. At the moment the only uplands in the entire property are at
the bottom of the property.
If there's any questions I can answer them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'll-- I was reading someplace
in this backup material that the code enforcement officer felt that you
didn't do it anyway. In all likelihood they say that it had nothing to do
with you, but because it's your property and nobody else owned up to
it, they wanted you to replace it; is that what the case is?
MR. CEELEY: That's the case. Upon talking to some
mitigators, professional and landscape people, it's around 25 to
Page 39
June 14, 2005
$35,000 to put it back to its environmental protected state. And
because of the way the ordinance is written, the owner -- doesn't
matter who did it, the owner's responsible for it.
Now, I got very lucky because that's the government's GIS aerial
photograph system, and it just happened to be snapped when all the
activity was going on.
And believe me, I don't want to be here, and we're not developing
the property. For the moment we're trying to figure out what we can
do with it.
We've owned it, like I said, for 40 years. Nothing has ever
happened to it. There's been no issues.
So like I said, I'd like code enforcement and transportation
somehow to resolve this, if it's possible, and to take the violation off
our record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, were you
done?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I was just going to ask to hear
from Michelle, but go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. A couple of things I'd
like to point out here, and I asked the gentleman to come today to
speak to us because this is something that I normally wouldn't have
got involved with. It would have been a civil matter, only in this case
here it involves the county. The county is the responsible party for the
retention pond, the county is involved with Immokalee Road with
activity construction going on in both places. It's very possible it
happened.
We've got to realize, when you look at this, there's no economic
benefit for clearing like this to take place, absolutely zero. It was like
an afterthought that somebody went in there and did some underbrush
clearing of some type, pushed everything to one side. This the reason
why I wanted to see it come to the commission. I think there's
Page 40
June 14, 2005
extenuating circumstances that bear further consideration.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How do you feel we can resolve it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't know. I'm still lost on
that. But if it wasn't the county involved on both sides there, I would
think that it would be up to the petitioner to go after them and do a
civil case against whoever might be the responsible party. In this case
it's very possible it's the county.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it wouldn't be the county. It would
be the contractor --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- that was doing the work.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We hired the contractor.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, yeah.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Where in this picture are we
talking, referencing this GIS map? Can you show me exactly where
the problem took place?
I can see on the right side of the aerial, and that's where the
retention pond is, but the problem is on the other side of the road; is
that correct?
MR. CEELEY: That's correct,
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you show me where it is? I
can't see what kind of damage --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There's a microphone over there that
you can -- hand-held.
MR. CEELEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And my question is, why -- if there
is a problem there, why would the county be involved in that piece of
property since it doesn't belong to them?
MR. CEELEY: Okay. Why would the county be involved in it?
Because the county made a mistake.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, can you show me where this
Page 41
June 14, 2005
MR. CEELEY: If you can see right here, it's being hidden by the
canopy of the trees. I do have another picture I can show you that
shows the damage a little bit better. This is basically an outline of
what happened.
There's a -- you can see the bulldozers over here go like this. The
damage over here, the piles are all put up in straight lines, just like
they made a mistake. That's all I can think of.
It's -- I've got the date for when the photograph was taken. I also
have Mark Beaverson from Johnson Engineering giving me two dates
that they worked on Saturdays, and in the police report -- I did have a
police report made, which they didn't find anybody, you know, to -- at
fault, but they did interview four people, and they said, yeah, we
remember some activity happening on two different weekends, and
that's when I'm assuming this happened.
And there's no other -- there's no other way around it. They've
got county activity on two sides of the property. I mean, I can't -- it's
surprising to me that I'm here. I'm not bringing a lawyer. I've come
here to try to resolve it. It's a county situation between the county and
county, code enforcement. I haven't brought a lawyer. I haven't
brought anybody else with me. I just wanted to get this over with and
have it go away.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can Norm Feder give us some
insight? Have you guys done an investigation on this to see if the
contractor was involved in this thing so we can get some resolution?
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, for the record, Norman Feder,
transportation administrator. Yes, this came through as names issue. I
had my staff investigate both the CEI, who is always out there when
the contractor is working, Mr. Beaverson, as was noted, and the
contractor assure us that they did not do this.
There's a number of things about the clearing that don't register,
even if I assume that it was a mistake. They don't clear in that
Page 42
June 14, 2005
manner.
And I have staff here, both the project manager, I have the CEI
consultant that can respond, and I appreciate that it's questionable why
the gentleman would have cleared it, so I'm not going to assume that
he did, although I can tell you, just the fact that we're working in the
area doesn't mean we did it.
Now, if we did, we'd be the first to own up to it. But everything I
can find on it, we did not do it, and the nature of the type of clearing,
I'd have staff if you want to, to speak to you to that, would be that it
wouldn't have been something that we did by the way that we
generally do do clearing and grubbing for a project.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So the clearing that was done on Mr.
Ceeley's property is not even apparent from an aerial photograph?
MR. FEDER: It's not clear from that. It's done in sort of a
serpentine, which is not the way clearing and grubbing is done. The
trees were pushed into the property, which is not the way clearing and
grubbing is done. It's pushed towards the road so that they can
remove it.
It typically goes through and it avoids a number of trees that
normally would be taken down, and all the other clearing and
grubbing everything is removed, then the Sabal Palms, they come in
afterwards and address those.
So the whole nature of what was done is not terribly consistent,
even if we had, just because we're in the area, made the mistake and
gone over and done some clearing on his property, they probably
wouldn't have cleared in that manner anyways.
I'm not trying to infer that he did this, but I am trying to
understand, if it's truly ours, we want to own up to it. And as you
pointed out, it would be the contractor, and we'd hold the contractor
responsible. So I'm not trying to avoid that. I'm only saying that
everything that I've been told and what I can find on this doesn't seem
to add up to it being our contractor.
Page 43
June 14, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commission Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, a question. You're pretty
familiar with how works get down and how long it takes. That
clearing that took place on Mr. Ceeley's property there, how long
would that have taken for a dedicated bulldoze operator to do? Would
it have been an hour, two hours, a day, couple days?
MR. FEDER: Well, first of all, you had saws and the other. If I
could, let me defer to our proj ect manager out there, and he is
probably much more in tune to exactly how this works and hopefully
can answer your questions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I do have just a
couple of questions have.
MR. FEDER: Okay. I'll stay tuned, but hopefully he can answer
them quickly for you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much.
Mr. Ritter?
MR. RITTER: As far as the amount of time it would take to
clear what was cleared on Mr. Ceeley's property, it'd be hard to say,
depending on what size equipment was in there, but a day, maybe two.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It would take eight hours or
more to do it?
MR. RITTER: It's really hard to say. It's wet in there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I mean, the mannerism that it
was done where they didn't go through -- they just more or less went
through and banged it down, backed up, banged down another piece,
are we talking hours or are we actually talking still days to be able to
do it. I have no idea.
MR. RITTER: I can only guess a couple days, because it was
meandered around the trees that he had on his property selectively.
There was some fill put in a ditch in order to cross, it looks like, to get
into there. But without knowing the size of equipment, if you had a
big piece of equipment, you could do it in a day. If it was a small
Page 44
June 14, 2005
piece of equipment which Mr. Ceeley --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me rephrase the question a
little bit. The equipment that was being used on the other side of the
road -- not saying that they did it --
MR. RITTER: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- how long would it take a
person or a couple people to be able to make that much damage?
MR. RITTER: I would say probably a day.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And you were on the job
every single day?
MR. RITTER: Every -- I wasn't personally, no. There was two
weekend days that they did some clearing in that general vicinity, or
between this pond and another pond, and there was an inspector on
site any time anybody's working out there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So that's the time that the
violations supposedly took place was a weekend.
MR. RITTER: Supposedly. I don't know what the weekend was.
I know some residents had said they'd seen somebody in there two
different weekends, bringing equipment in and --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the weekends where --
there was a couple weekends when we didn't have an inspector on site.
MR. RITTER: The two weekends that we worked were actually
two different months, too. One was in December, like the 13th, and
one was in January 17th, so two months apart.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I have no idea how that
lines up with it.
MR. RITTER: Yeah. I don't know, you know, who might have
been done it. It could have been almost anybody, somebody picked
the wrong site to clear some are property. I don't know what to tell
you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But you -- actually we didn't
have an inspector on the site that represented the --
Page 45
June 14, 2005
MR. RITTER: We did have. When they worked on the
weekends, we did have an inspector there with them.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We did?
MR. RITTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, but just yourself wasn't
there?
MR. RITTER: I, myself, wasn't there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
MR. RITTER: And Mark could add to that if you --
MR. BEAVERSON: Mark Beaverson, Johnson Engineering.
Whenever the contractor goes to work, we have an inspector on site.
And he does schedule with us on Saturdays particularly because that's
not a normal workday.
So if he's going to work, he's required to notify Steve and I that
he's going to be working on Saturday, and we arrange to have the
inspection -- inspectors on site.
In addition to that, we also make runs through, because we have a
people that live in the area that work on the project, and just to make
sure that there's not anything going on or there's drainage issues or
something that we need to take care of, we have people driving
through the proj ect on the weekends.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you be willing to put that
on your letterhead and testify to the fact that because of the procedures
you have set up, there was no way that the contractor could do such a
violation without your knowledge, that it could not have taken place?
Could you state that as a fact?
No, really, seriously, could you?
MR. BEAVERSON: Normally I would -- I would be able to do
that, but there's no way, since we're not working every Saturday to
know that he did not get in there and do it. But the clearing
subcontractor that he uses is very experienced in the area, he knows
where to clear and where not to clear. He's not going to clear anything
Page 46
June 14, 2005
he doesn't have to, because he's only getting paid for what the contract
says he's getting cleared for.
And that's well delineated in the field with staking, and that's
checked by our inspection staff, and there's just no way that he would
need to get over to that property and clear it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So there is just a little element
of possibility that is could have happened?
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, if I could ask a question of Mark
very quickly, hopefully to answer your question.
We keep a log of the work and their progress. If they came out
on a Saturday that they didn't inform you on, is there any time that you
found that there was work, extra work done that wasn't covered in the
times that your people were there to inspect?
MR. BEAVERSON: No. Normally the only thing that occurs on
Saturdays is cleanup work. If they would have laid pipe or anything
like that, we would have had to come back and reinspect all of that. If
they clear on a Saturday in an area, say in pond three, for instance,
which is a rather large area, if they would have cleared portions of that
that we weren't there for, it would be evident on Monday, and we
would have -- we would have so noted that in the daily reports.
And there's no such -- in our investigation and interview of all the
inspectors that were on it, as well as the contractor when we got --
when Mr. Ceeley talked to me about it, no one had that occurrence
happen. There just was no reason for them to be in there on that side
of the road to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The type of damage that was
incurred on the opposing property, does it fit -- could it fit with the
type of equipment that you have on your site?
MR. BEAVERSON: Well, the clearing equipment's clearing
equipment.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
Page 47
June 14, 2005
MR. BEAVERSON: You know, a bulldozer can clear, a loader
can clear, or anything. So yeah, the equipment's that's used is the
same.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. BEAVERSON: I can't say that was that equipment that did
it, however.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You know, Commissioners, we're not
going to be able to investigate this and determine responsibility here.
What we really have to do is decide what's fair for Mr. Ceeley, and I
think that's best decided at another hearing where we can actually
reach some conclusions here.
Okay. Is there enough--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would like to see it brought
back just because there's still uncertainty to the whole thing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, yes. Commissioner Coletta has a
motion to bring this back for a public hearing.
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 COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 3-2 with Commissioner
Halas and Commissioner Henning in opposition, so --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you have a meeting. You want to
bring it back the next meeting?
Page 48
June 14, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I make a suggestion? I
don't think this is time sensitive. As long as we can put code violation
aside until we get this resolved in the commission, I don't think Mr.
Ceeley's in any hurry for it to be done.
I know our meeting for the 28th, is it, is quite full. Maybe even
our first meeting in September might be full. I know our meeting in
July is about full. So I don't think there would be a problem on the
part of Mr. Ceeley, just as long as it doesn't have to go through the
whole code process until we make a final determination.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we could do it next year, and by
that time maybe it would be grown back up again and we'll never
notice.
MR. CEELEY: It already has.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So the longer we delay this, the better it
fixes itself, right? No? Okay. We really don't have time this month.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So let's talk about September, October,
but I don't want to see -- I'd prefer that he not be penalized because of
that, okay.
Is that all right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fine. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can we do that?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Then you have a motion
MR. MUDD: Got it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- to do that. Okay.
MR. MUDD: 3-2.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. All right. Where do we go from
here?
Page 49
June 14, 2005
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2005-230: APPOINTING MICHAEL JOSEPH
DELATE, BRIAN J. MCMAHON, SALLY WOLIVER,
CHRISTIAN M. SPILKER, L. CHRISTIAN MOGEL V ANG,
MICHAEL R. BAUER, MAUREEN BOWNESS, RICHARD
CALABRESE AND VINCENT P. LUCAS - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Item 9, and that is
9A, and it's appointment of members to the Habitat Conservation Plan
Ad Hoc Committee.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're going to be appointing
nine members to this committee. In the interest of making sure
everybody gets a chance to appoint someone, can we -- can we take a
series of nominations, one from each commissioner, and then vote on
those five, and then the next time we'll do four more and vote on those
four; is that okay for everybody?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to nominate Joseph Delate,
please, Michael Joseph Delate.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas is Mr.
Delate.
Anybody else have a nomination? Commissioner Henning? I
mean, I'm sorry, Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Brian McMahon.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Brian McMahon for
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sally Woliver. Third from the
bottom.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Commissioner Fiala,
Sally Woliver.
Commissioner Henning?
Page 50
June 14, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Christian Spilker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Christian Spilker, Commissioner
Henning, okay.
MS. FILSON: Is that the first applicant listed?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's the first applicant listed, yes. And
I will nominate Christian Mogelvang.
Now, let's -- if anybody has an objection to anyone of these
nominations, you certainly can register that objection now; otherwise,
we'll vote on these five nominations.
So hearing no objections, is there a vote for these five members
for this committee? Is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve these five.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Halas.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Henning.
Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have appointed Christian
Spilker, Michael Joseph Delate, Brian McMahon, Christian
Mogelvang, and Sally Woliver.
N ow we need four more nominations, and we will start with
Commissioner Henning this time.
Page 51
June 14, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hang on. I have somebody in
mind, but I need to take a look at their application.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you come back to me?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Michael Bauer.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala's nominating
Michael Bauer.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Christian Spilker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He's already been nominated.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. Forgive me. Yes.
Maureen Bonness.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Maureen Bonness, okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm ready.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Richard Calabrese.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Richard Calabrese for
Commissioner Henning.
And Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Vincent P. Lucas, please. He's a
birder.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Vincent Lucas for Commissioner Halas.
All right. Then that gives us a total of nine. For those four, they
will be Michael Bauer, Richard Calabrese, Vincent Lucas, and
Maureen Bonness.
Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we approve
these.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas makes a
Page 52
June 14, 2005
motion to approve. Commission Coletta's --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- seconded.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
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?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we have our nine members
appointed. Thank you very much.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2005-231: DECLARING A VACANCY ON THE
IMMOKALEE LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD
-ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 9B, which is a
recommendation to declare a vacancy on the Immokalee Local
Redevelopment Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Halas, to accept the designation of
-- or the declaration that Gary Halloway's position will be vacant.
Page 53
June 14, 2005
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.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2005-232: APPOINTING TERRENCE SCOTT
DOLAN TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 9C, which is
appointment of a member of the Environmental Advisory Council.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve Terrence
Dolan.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Henning to
approve Terrence Dolan, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 54
June 14, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It carries unanimously.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2005-233: REAPPOINTING LES DICKSON AND
ANN LUNDBLAD KELLER (REPRESENTING THE CITY OF
NAPLES) TO THE CONTRACTOR'S LICENSING BOARD-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 9D. It's
appointment of members to the Contractors Licensing Board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We also have a limitation on Mr.
Dickson.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, on terms, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ifhe's approved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're appointing one member
and confirming the City of Naples representative.
MS. FILSON: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So there is only one applicant to really
be approved, so that is Les Dickson. If there's a motion to approve
Mr. -- or Les Dickson for appointment to a three-year term and waive
the requirements of the ordinance, which requires a unanimous vote of
the commission, then Les Dickson could be reappointed to the board,
and we would be accepting the appointment of Ann Keller as the City
of Naples representative.
Is there a motion to approve?
Page 55
June 14, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: A motion by Commissioner Fiala to
approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Halas.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Opposed, by like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hearing none, it is unanimous.
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2005-234: APPOINTING CAPTAIN TOM DAVIS
REPRESENTING THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE TO THE
IMMOKALEE ENTERPRISE ZONE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to Item 9E, which is
appointment of a member to the Immokalee Enterprise Zone
Development Agency.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve Captain Tom
Davis.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner
Page 56
June 14, 2005
Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala to confirm the appointment of
Captain Tom Davis to represent the sheriffs office in the Immokalee
Enterprise Zone.
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 is unanimous.
And we're taking a 1 Q-minute break.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Commissioner, anytime you have a forum, I'm ready.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: A quorum, excuse me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: A forum?
MR. MUDD: A quorum. I corrected myself.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're back in session.
Item #9F
DISCUSSION DIRECTING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO
PROCEED TOWARD FILING SUIT TO DETERMINE LEGAL
OWNERSHIP OF EASEMENTS ALONG VENDERBIL T BEACH -
DISCUSSED
Page 57
June 14, 2005
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next Item is 9F, and it is a--
Commissioner Halas requests for discussion direct county attorney to
proceed for filing suit to determine legal ownership of easements
along Vanderbilt Beach.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The reason I brought this up and
put it on the agenda is that there's been an ongoing discussion since
1953 in regards to the claims that the county says the three areas of
concern -- I believe there's three areas that the county says that's their
beach access, and, of course, the citizens say that there's been deed
restrictions put onto that.
So I would like to have either the county or the citizens work this
out together so that we come to a resolution and end this ongoing
discussion that's been here since 1953. Maybe we can have some
input from our county attorney in regards to this.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. What we're talking about here is
that in 1953 a plat was accepted by the Board of County
Commissioners which provided for, among other things, three public
accesses for beach access in the Vanderbilt area, Connor Estates, and
subsequent to that some deed restrictions were filed and recorded
indicating restrictions on the properties that are located within that
platted subdivision.
The county attorney has been asked before, and, in fact, in 1994,
Assistant County Attorney Ashton, upon request of county staff, with
the request for legal services, reviewed and opined that the property
rights of the county in regard to beach access, existed.
And so from that point and forward, the county -- county staff
has, I think, acted, operated, with no question on behalf of the county
that we believe our right -- the right of the public for beach access
through these small accessways is paramount.
Mr. Halas is asking if, in fact, a declaratory judgment lawsuit
should be filed to settle a question. To have such a lawsuit viable
requires a case in controversy. I would suggest that if there is a
Page 58
June 14, 2005
controversy, that is -- and I have been present at meetings where
residents of this platted subdivision believe otherwise, that, in fact,
there is a limitation to the public access aspect of these three
easements.
I would suggest that if there were to be a lawsuit, that the county
would be better placed if it were the defendant. The reason I say that
is because there are many, many parcels that exist up there, many
owners of parcels and units within this subdivision, and based on our
discussion with one or some of the members of the subdivision, they
already are seeking their own advice of legal counsel, but I believe
that it would be more appropriate for them to file a lawsuit seeking a
declaratory judgment of the court as to the rights or limitations to
these accesses rather than have the county file a lawsuit and possibly
have to file a lawsuit against every property owner in the subdivision
to settle these rights because it may be an inconvenience and certainly
an expense foisted upon many property owners that would otherwise
not wish to be burdened with the expense to have to respond to a
lawsuit in civil court.
A property owners' association or a grouping of property owners
in the subdivision or even an individual could file a lawsuit against the
county, and the county would do the same work that it would do in
court to response to its interests and provide a case as it would if it
were a plaintiff.
I don't know if you have any questions in that regard.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, the only questions I have that
I want to just let my fellow commissioners know that in that area of a
little over 1.1 miles, there's a total of nine beach accesses, if you count
-- include these three, so it's not -- it's not in the realm of saying that
there's insufficient beach access. It's just the idea that three of these
beach accesses basically are involved in residential areas where the
access is less than 10 feet from adjoining residents or homes, while the
other beach accesses are set up so that they enter into the beach
Page 59
June 14, 2005
through condominium or commercial areas.
So I guess what needs to be done is, after this discussion, is the
fact that the homeowners' association or a property owner from that
point on has to decide which way they want to address this.
Obviously the county is not going to try to work in the best
interest of the citizens in trying to alleviate this problem at this point
in time since it's been going on since 1953.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, what I'd -- would suggest to consider --
and county manager's staff may wish to add a comment here -- is the
fact that the use of public access as exists on a plat is just what it says
on the plat, public access, and so the public -- the public, whoever and
wherever they may be located -- and it doesn't necessarily mean a
resident of the county -- could attempt to utilize that public access.
I expect that some of the concern here has to do with planning or
considerations that county staff may have to further utilize that access
from whatever use it has up to the present time.
There may be some questions about prior use and signage, et
cetera, that the county may have already placed there years ago. The
use of an access by the county, such as increasing use or more
officially making it usable, is something that is a -- ultimately a board
determination.
You can tell your staff, the county manager, as a collective board
whether you wish them to enhance or further advertise, notice, the use
of these accesses or any others that may exist.
And again, I suggest that as something to consider in lieu or in
light of a lawsuit. A lawsuit always can be created by one party filing
against another. But call it friendly lawsuit or not, sometimes they are
a little more problematic than they may seem at the outset.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. My final question basically
is that the county then does not respect deed restrictions in regards to a
plat; is that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: No, not at all. Our review of the law back in
Page 60
June 14, 2005
1994 was -- and a review of the law is a totality of the law -- is that
public access as depicted on a plat accepted by a local government, in
this case Collier County, transcends any deed restrictions that may be
placed by separate document later on.
And by virtue of timing, these deed restrictions were placed later.
They're not in the plat. The Board of County Commissioners in 1953
accepted a plat that depicted beach access. It said public access on it,
and so, therefore, the document speaks for itself. It's not a question of
not paying attention to deed restrictions.
Although, as you know, the county, through code enforcement,
has never been -- has never taken the role of attempting to enforce
private deed restrictions on properties.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, a comment is that these
beach accesses are next to residential. Let's remind everybody that the
City of Naples, all their beach access is next to residential that I'm
aware of. I don't think it's an incompatible use.
The -- you know, state statutes dictates where counties must keep
public access to beaches public and not to give them away, and I think
they had some discussion about that this year and tried to encourage
people to enjoy waters through marinas and the like. Land
development code is clear, like the county attorney says, is we do not
enforce deed restrictions. This is a public access recognized by the
county, and I don't want to take any action on this Item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I just want to clarify, you're
absolutely right, Commissioner Henning, that there's accesses in
Naples, but most all the accesses are at the end of the streets where
they tie into the beach and not directly next door within five to six feet
of homes, the majority of cases.
So I just wanted to bring it up for discussion, and we'll see where
it goes from here.
Page 61
June 14, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Actually with respect to the city
beach ends, they are all-- almost all adjacent to homes, the parking as
well as the pathways.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But nevertheless, is there -- is there
sentiment to proceed with a lawsuit?
My feeling is that I think that it needs to be resolved. I think
something needs to be done. I'm not sure that filing a lawsuit against
residents --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't think lawsuit's the way to
go. I hope that there's some other opportunities available out there for
the citizens.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But I just wanted to bring this forth
because this has been an ongoing discussion, as we said, for a number
of years, us versus them, and I think that there should be some -- that
we should come up with -- to resolve the problem here in short order
one way or the other, and I was hoping that the legal staff would work
with the citizens to try to figure out the best way other than going
through a lawsuit.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, yeah. Legal staff is happy to speak
to and work with the residents up there, as we've already started to do,
and fielded some phone calls and things of that nature.
I think, perhaps, the question though for the board, if they wish to
consider, is the fact that to the extent that the county and the county
staff, not the county attorney office, are implementing beach access
plans which include this area, the board may wish to consider working
with county manager in regard to whether they wish these three
accesses to become more of an issue in the sense of county utilization
as opposed to being more or less mere accesses depicted on a plat
which the public may use and the county is noting that, and
purportedly about to make a greater use of those.
Page 62
June 14, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that's a better alternative to
these -- to the situation, that it's there for the public but not to be used
as a drop-off point for dropping off 40 or 50 people at one time.
MR. WEIGEL: I understand that, and that's an issue for the
board and the implementor of board policy, the county manager, to
determine. The county attorney can opine on the legality of things, but
that's more of a policy decision at this point in time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The -- as I understand it, the residents
are saying that these are deeded access points for them only, and you
have opined that that is not true, that they are open to the public?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If -- I feel reasonably sure that the
residents would like to have that resolved, and I believe, based upon
your position, that the best way for them to do that is for them to seek
a legal determination of the issue, and -- because we would have a
hard time identifying all of the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Parameters.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, and the people who had an interest
in this issue, too.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. We can identify them all, Commissioner,
but it would be many, hundreds, conceivably, unit owners as well as
individual owners there. It's a significant subdivision there.
And so for us to do service of process naming hundreds of
defendants, some of these people who live far away and, perhaps, are
not closely connected with their property owner associations, things of
that nature, may find themselves at a -- feeling that they're placed in a
problem by the county in filing a suit against them on an issue that
they're, perhaps, not too close to.
And so I think the better course would be if they wish -- if some
or all of those property owners or through their association wish to
achieve a legal determination in court, that they file the friendly
lawsuit against the county, and then the county will respond to
Page 63
June 14, 2005
whomever has sued it, and the county can go forward and do what it
needs to.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think Mr. Weigel has
answered it quite well. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So is there any action that the
board wishes to take, other than that which we have already
discussed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Hearing none, we'll go on to the
next Item.
Let's try to -- we have a time certain at 11, but Commissioner
Henning has an issue for reconsideration. I think we can move on
relatively quickly. So let's go to 9G.
Item #9G
REQUEST OT RECONSIDER THE BEMBRIDGE PUD; PUDZ-A-
5998 - TO BE BROUGHT AT THE JULY 26, 2005 BCC MEETING
ALONG WITH THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
REZONE - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: 9G is a request to reconsider the Bembridge PUD,
PUDZ-A-5998. Ms. Len Price wrote me a letter, who is basically
representing the petitioner, Collier County, for the Bembridge PUD to
basically talk about emergency services center. She wrote me a letter
and asked that the board reconsider the previous action at the last
board meeting.
I wrote a letter to the three commissioners that were in the
majority on that particular Item, and I received a request by one of
Page 64
June 14, 2005
them to reconsider this particular Item.
At this time I need to figure out if the board would like to
reconsider this particular petition.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it needs only three votes.
MR. MUDD: If they do decide to reconsider this petition, it will
come back at the second regularly scheduled meeting from this one,
and that would be around July 26th, would be that meeting in July.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. This is not a time to discuss the
merits. It is a time to decide merely if you want to reconsider it.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion to
reconsider, but also in my reconsideration, to bring back EMS station
number 19 as far as the rezone to emergency services and! or
conditional use.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner
Henning to bring this back as well as a consideration with respect to
the rezone for the emergency services facility, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Emergency medical.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Emergency medical services facility.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question, if I may,
Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Does that encompass the whole
agenda Item as it was presented to us before?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then I'll second your motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There's a motion to reconsider by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 65
June 14, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, by like sign?
Aye.
So it -- it is -- will come back.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, and that will be July 26th.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Item #12A
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GIVE DIRECTION TO
OUTSIDE COUNSEL (GARVIN & TRIPP, P.A.) AND THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY CONCERNING THE
SETTLEMENT OFFER REQUIRED BY SECTION 70.001(4) (C),
FLA. STAT., IN RESPONSE TO THE PURPORTED BERT
HARRIS ACT CLAIM ASSERTED BY V AN-DEV, INC. AND
VANDERBILT BEACH ASSOCIATES, LTD. - THE ALLEGED
OWNER(S) OF THE VANDERBILT BEACH INN PROPERTY.
MOTION TO APPROVE WHAT OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY HAVE PRESENTED CONCERNING
SETTLEMENT OFFER INCLUDING INCREASES IN
EASEMENT FOOTAGE AND $500,000 FOR IMPROVEMENTS-
FAILED -2/3 (COMMISSIONERS HALAS, FIALA, AND COYLE
OPPOSED) MOTION TO MAKE NO CHANGES IN ACTION -
FAILED 2/3 - (COMMISSIONERS COYLE, HENNING AND
COLETTA OPPOSED) MOTION TO BRING BACK AT 5:00 P.M.
- APPROVED 4/1 (COMMISSIONER HALAS OPPOSED)
MOTION TO GO AHEAD WITH SETTLEMENT OFFER WITH
THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: 20' WIDE EASEMENT TO
THE BEACH, WITH AN ADDITIONAL EASEMENT OF 10' TO
THE WALKWAY FOR PURPOSE OF BUILDING RESTROOM
FACILITIES - 90' HEIGHT PERMITTED WITH A MAXIMUM
Page 66
June 14, 2005
OF 135'HEIGHT - ALLOCATE NECESSARY SPACE FOR A
TURN AROUND - SETBACKS OF 50' AT THE GARAGE AND
52' AT THE BUILDING ITSELF - WILL CONTRIBUTE $500,000
TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT FOR
CONSTRUCTING IMPROVEMENTS - RIGHTS TO SUE UNDER
THE BERT HARRIS ACT WILL BE WAIVED WITHIN 30 DAYS
OF RECEIVING THEIR PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND
WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT DR. BING AND THE
ASSOCIATIONS THAT HE REPRESENTS WILL NOT OPPOSE
THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Sir, that brings us to a time certain Item at 11 a.m.,
and that is 12A. This Item to be heard at 11 a.m. It's a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners give
direction to outside counsel, Garvin and Tripp, P.A., and the office of
the county attorney concerning the settlement offer required by
section 70.014, parens 4, parens -- subparagraph 4C of the Florida
Statutes in response to the purported Bert Harris Act claim asserted by
Van-Dev, Inc., and Vanderbilt Beach Associates, Limited, the alleged
owners of the Vanderbilt Beach Inn property.
And Mr. Mike Pettit from the county attorney's office will
present.
MR. PETTIT: Good morning, Commissioners. Mike Pettit, chief
assistant county attorney.
As Mr. Mudd described and his executive summary describes,
we do have a so-called Bert Harris Act claim that has been filed by the
owners or alleged owners of the Vanderbilt Beach Inn property,
Van-Dev, Inc. and Vanderbilt Beach Associates.
And under that statute, there's a 180-day period in which the
claimant and the local government may talk, and at a certain point, the
local government is required to provide a written settlement proposal
to resolve that claim.
Page 67
June 14, 2005
And I think as is outlined in the executive summary, the statutes
provide a series of possible resolutions. These are typically
non-monetary resolutions, of course, one of which is no change at all
to the action allegedly giving rise to the claim which, in effect, would
probably lead to a lawsuit, at least in this case, or in many cases.
With me today is Lisa Worthington from the firm of Garvin and
Tripp, that we have retained as our outside counsel on this matter, and
I'm going to let her describe to you a little bit more of the legal context
of where we are and also a proposal we have received from the owner
of the Vanderbilt Inn property in the Vanderbilt Beach area, which
they would -- we at least are under the understanding -- would accept
if this board were to make that offer to resolve this dispute.
And with that, I'll turn it over to Ms. Worthington.
MS. WORTHINGTON: Good morning, Commissioners. Lisa
Worthington with your outside counsel, Garvin and Tripp.
As Mr. Pettit said, there's a pending Bert Harris Act claim that
has been submitted to the county. As you probably all know, the basis
for the claim is the enactment of the Vanderbilt Beach overlay district
which reduced the maximum height allowable in that district from 100
feet with 120-foot conditional use, to 75 feet, and that's the basis for
this property owner's claim.
The act actually requires the commission to make a settlement
offer to the affected property owner within the first 180 days after the
claim is presented, and that's what we're here for today, to determine
what that settlement offer will be.
As Mr. Pettit said, one of the things that this board can decide to
do as a settlement offer is to send a written notice to the property
owner that the board does not intend to do anything differently than is
already stated in the overlay to maintain those development standards;
however, one thing that the board can do is adjust those standards to,
as the act requires, appropriately all eve (sic) the burden -- relieve the
burden that's been placed on the property owner. In this case, permit
Page 68
June 14, 2005
the property owner to build to 100 feet instead of maintaining the
75-foot maximum height restriction in the overlay.
Discussions with the property owners, county staff, county
attorney's office, and our office have resulted in a proposed settlement
offer which the property owner has indicated that it would accept if
the commission sees fit to make such an offer, and I'll just describe the
terms of the offer to give you a better idea.
In exchange for permitting the property owner to build up to 100
feet as opposed to staying at the 75- foot zoned height now permitted
under the overlay, the property owner would deed to the county a
20- foot wide, 300- foot long beach access along the northern boundary
of the property owner's property, and that would be the boundary
between the property and the state park, the Delnor- Wiggins State
Park there.
In addition, there would be an additional easement at the beach
terminus of that -- of that easement to allow for vehicular turnaround.
If the county were to institute a trolley service, that could be used to
get people to the beach. Citizens can also use that to drop off people
and Items at the beach.
In addition to the easement and the turnaround, the property
owner would give to the county $500,000 to improve that easement, to
enhance it with such things as rest rooms, pavers, landscaping, to
make it truly a world-class beach access that not just residents from
Collier County, but tourists who come from all over, would be able to
use.
In addition to the easements and the $500,000, the property
owners would give to Collier County a release of the Bert Harris Act
claim. I want to -- I want to explain in detail what that release would
entail. It would be a full and final release, but there are some
conditions attached to the release.
The release would be given by the property owner not until 30
days after the building permit or SDP approval comes through,
Page 69
June 14, 2005
whichever is later, and there's a reason for that, actually two reasons.
If there is some type of administrative review which is requested
or Circuit Court review of this settlement and if the challengers to the
settlement are able to get a court to come in and issue an injunction for
the construction of the building or the issuance of the permit, the
property owner would not have to give a release to Collier County
until that injunction and the underlying lawsuit is resolved.
However, if 30 days after the issuance of the permit or the
approval of the SDP no actual injunction has been issued by a court,
the release will be signed by the property owner, and the Bert Harris
Act claim will be resolved at that time.
The settlement proposal -- when you're talking about a settlement
proposal under the Bert Harris Act, which adjusts current zoning and
development standards, the act requires that the settlement proposal
meet two criteria. The first criterion is that the settlement proposal is
an appropriate way to relieve the burden on the property owner.
In this case there's a problem with the height. This settlement
proposal, which allows an additional 25 feet over the current
standards, would be an appropriate way to address that burden.
The second criterion is that the settlement proposal as a whole
must protect the public interest served by the regulation or the
ordinance which you're adjusting, in this case the Vanderbilt Beach
overlay and the LDC as a whole.
Staff is going to be expanding upon the public interests which are
served by the LDC as a whole and the overlay in particular and also
how those are served by the settlement. But I'll just name for the
commission what those public interests are to put it in context.
When the overlay was adapted -- was adopted, it contains
specific intangents (phonetic), specific criteria that it was supposed to
address, among which were the preservation of view corridors
between buildings, light and air movements between the Gulf of
Mexico and the lagoon on the other side of Gulfshore Drive, the
Page 70
June 14, 2005
protection from the institution of canyonization where you essentially
have a wall of buildings on each side of Gulfshore Drive, and also to
not discourage, but to encourage development and redevelopment in
that area, which is compatible to the scale existing in the area now and
the sense of place that people have come to -- come to enjoy in that
particular area.
The LDC also has certain goals, and among those goals are the
provision of recreation facilities and the conservation and utilization
of natural resources such as Collier County's beaches.
And now I'll turn this over to staff to let the commission know
how this settlement proposal could serve those goals.
MS. MURRAY: Good morning, Commissioners. Susan Murray,
zoning director. I was asked to provide a professional planning
opinion relative to the protection of public interests served by the
VBR TO and the LDC and its relationship to this proposed settlement
offer.
I have just a three-minute presentation just to summarize
basically three goals set forth by the VBR TO and the LDC. The first
one being to protect view corridors, light and air movement between
the Gulf and the lagoon, and to prevent canyonization of Gulfshore
Drive.
Because there are no land development code provisions that
regulate building mass in the R T zoning district, a perceived reduction
in scale or mass of a building is achieved primarily through the
regulation of yard requirements.
For the RT zoning district, the LDC sets for a relationship
between required yards and building height. Specifically, the taller
the building, the greater the yard requirement.
This proposal, in my opinion, increases the view corridors, light
and air movements, and decreases canyonization by increasing the
open space between the new building and the existing neighboring
building to the south and between the new building and Gulfshore
Page 71
June 14, 2005
Drive.
A building height of 100 feet will require a greater front, side,
and rear yard setback, and that achieves the obj ective, more so than a
building of a lesser height.
The second goal through the VBR TO is to encourage
redevelopment which is sensitive to existing scale compatibility and a
sense of place.
The subject site comprises the entire location of the RT zoning
district on the north end of Gulfshore Drive and is surrounded by
properties with RMF -16 zoning to the south and east, the state park to
the north, and the Gulf of Mexico to the west.
This is significant because the subject site has a direct
relationship to adjacent properties which do not have an RT zoning
designation. In fact, the adjacent site to the south is developed with
two multi-family structures that are in excess of 200 feet in height.
In urban design theory from a structure to structure relationship,
it is preferable to create a visual transitional massing effect through
the use of architectural features and building height in order to create
visually appealing relationships between buildings that appear to
harmonize with each other.
In this case, the proposal of a 100- foot building is more in scale
and compatible with the two buildings on the adjacent property to the
south, which are in excess of 200 feet tall. Sense of place is preserved
by providing the public with continued access to the beach, which
they have enjoyed for many years now, over the dedicated and
improved easement, which would otherwise be lost through the
development of this site.
And the last and final goal is set forth in the ordinance that
actually adopted the original VBR T overlay, ordinance number 04-01,
to facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of recreational
facilities and to conserve, develop, utilize, and protect natural
resources.
Page 72
June 14, 2005
The proposal here in the settlement is to offer a 20- foot wide
easement along the northern boundary of the property with additional
easement at the beach terminus for a vehicular turnaround, along with
the $500,000 for improvements such as bathrooms, landscaping,
seating, et cetera, and will provide the public with increased
convenient and perpetual beach access not subj ect to loss through
development.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does that conclude the staffs
presentation?
MS. MURRAY: That -- yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioners, do you have any
questions of staff, or do you want to go to public speakers?
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I would just like at this time
to offer some additional information to my four county commissioners
that I work with here, that, to start with, the committee that was an ad
hoc committee was made up of about 14 people in four different
organizations in the Vanderbilt overlay.
And it was a combined effort by the 14 people, and they raised a
sum of well over $100,000 to address this overlay. And it basically,
as we heard earlier this morning by a petitioner -- whereby it was
difficult for the citizens and the county to work together to put this
overlay together.
So what they did is they went out and basically put together
$100,000, a little over, and got involved with consultation and also
legal representation, and the monies was raised by homeowner
associations, condo associations, and also small businesses that were
located down there on Gulfshore Drive.
The consultants that they used, they had David Depew, who was
a planner, he's out of Fort Myers, of Norris, Depew Engineers,
Planners, and Surveyors, they also had the good fortune of having a
couple attorneys, one being from this area here, Tony Pires, and the
Page 73
June 14, 2005
other person, Tom Pelham, who is out of Tallahassee, and then they
also hired an economist to work out this whole plan.
So at that, I just wanted to give that additional information to my
fellow commissioners in regards to the efforts that were put together
by a consortium of individuals, and we can listen to the input from the
people who worked on this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you. We have how many
speakers, 10?
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have 10 speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And how many of those speakers
will waive if we grant Dr. Bing additional time to present? One, two,
three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Who are the other two?
MS. FILSON: Rich Yovanovich.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm not waiving.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We've got a waive by Rich
Y ovanovich. Who is next? I'm still looking for the tenth speaker.
Okay.
MR. MUDD: Got to be Dr. Bing.
MS. FILSON: No, Rich is one of the speakers. I'm sorry. Rich
is the first speaker, and then I have nine additional.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, but he doesn't count.
Okay. Dr. Bing, are you going to be the first speaker? Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're going to be the second speaker.
MS. FILSON Rich Yovanovich is the first speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Yovanovich?
MS. FILSON: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, ma'am.
MS. FILSON: Three or five?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll go with five minutes each, but Dr.
Bing will get 12 minutes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The reason is, that he's speaking on
Page 74
June 14, 2005
behalf of a lot of people who --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I hope we would get some leeway
since we're actually the other side of the issue, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's see what you have to say.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think I'll need a whole lot of time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If I can -- again, Rich Y ovanovich for the
petition -- actually representing the property owner, not the petitioner.
Weare exactly where we said we would be when the Vanderbilt
Beach overlay was adopted. We spoke at that time and advised you
that there was going to be a substantial effect to the property value if
the overlay was adopted and applied to our property.
That is supported by your record, by the county's own economist
who looked at the overlay and the impact of the overlay. We did what
we had to do to protect ourselves, which was file the Bert Harris
claim, and we're here before with you a proposal that we believe is a
win-win for the property owner and the residents of Collier County.
We worked with your staff to address beach access issues, not
only just being able to walk to the beach, but to actually -- if you need
to go to a rest room facility, to provide an opportunity for rest room
facilities to be constructed.
Part of the money that we're -- agreed to pay will go towards the
purchase of a trolley to bring people to that beach access and will go
to the construction of rest room facilities, not only on the beach
access, but also at Connor Park.
This proposal resolves a substantial claim. You know our claim
was for $18 million, which is the diminution of value that will occur
through the reduction of height.
We believe that the proposal provides over -- an abundance of
benefits to the residents of Collier County. Everybody has seen in the
paper the last few weeks the need for additional beach access in
Collier County.
Page 75
June 14, 2005
Right now people enjoy beach access through the Vanderbilt Inn
to get to the beach, the northern part of Vanderbilt Beach. If the
proposal is not accepted, that beach access will go away, we'll be
required to build a 75-foot tall building, it will be -- as Susan mention,
it will be a fatter building, probably actually cover more area than the
taller, skinnier building, and there will not be an opportunity for beach
access because that will simply go away. It will be a private
condominium without any beach access.
We don't think that's what the residents of Collier County want.
We think it's what the residents of Vanderbilt Beach want, but we
don't think it's what the residents of Collier County want.
Weare proposing -- actually what's before you -- you need to
understand that this is really the only large enough piece in the area
that can achieve 100 feet in height. It's also the only property in the
area that was ripe, if you will, to present a Bert Harris claim. Nobody
else's property in the area was ready to be redeveloped at 100-foot in
height. There was not enough mass, not enough land mass to
accomplish that, so the overlay has served its purpose.
For properties south of this property, nobody will be able to
achieve higher than a 75- foot building. This parcel of property is also
isolated. It's separated from the bulk of the RT zoning district. It's
adjacent to a county -- a state park. It's also adjacent to a
condominium. That, Susan mentioned, is 200 feet tall. That's much
larger than what we're proposing. We would not be incompatible with
what's around us.
What we're -- the proposal that is on the table, we will follow
through with and honor if it comes our way from the county
commISSIon.
And I would like to remind the commission that when we went
through the R T overlay adoption, your staff recommended that the
overlay not be adopted, and I believe the county attorney advised that
you would be facing a Bert Harris claim at this time.
Page 76
June 14, 2005
The claim is substantial. It's an $18 million claim. It's really not
a claim that the residents of Collier County should have to pay when,
in return for the 25 feet in height, a tremendous amount of beach
access is being provided to all residents of Collier County and will
benefit all of the residents of Collier County.
I would request, Commissioner Coyle, if I may, have a few
minutes to rebut what Dr. Bing says, if that is okay. Since we are an
affected party, I think that would only be fair. I've kept my comments
to the five minutes.
And with that, I'm available to answer any questions on the
proposal that you may have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Yeah, I want to assure you, we'll
provide plenty of time to make sure that all of the issue -- all sides of
the issue are discussed so that we have full knowledge of what's being
done here. I just don't want to be repetitive.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But we'll make sure we get all the
answers we need in order to make the decision before we cut off
public input.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I have Dr. Bing, and I'm
assuming the other eight speakers are waiving.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MS. FILSON: And 12 minutes?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
DR. BING: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning, Dr. Bing.
DR. BING: For the record, Richard Bing, 10951 Gulfshore
Drive. I'm president of Vanderbilt Beach and Bay Association and
chairman of the Vanderbilt Beach Zoning Committee, which is a
coalition of Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners' Association and
Vanderbilt Beach and Bay.
Mr. Chairman, the last I knew, nine times twenty -- or three timesf
Page 77
June 14, 2005
nine is 27, and I will keep it to less than that, but please --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But today I get to make the math rules.
DR. BING: I understand, I understand. And I think we can work
through that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
DR. BING: But there's a lot of fodder (sic) that I wasn't planning
on discussing that's already been presented here that was out of the
blue to me that I need to respond to, but I'll go into what I had planned
to say first and then come back to some of the facts that are totally
inaccurate that you just heard.
I like to show everybody what I plan to talk about, and this is an
outline that clearly will identify the eight Items I'd like to go through.
And I think as -- is it too small for you to read? Okay. I'll read them.
The first Item is clarify the record of Vanderbilt Beach and Bay
Association's role regarding the Aquaport BJH claim and differentiate
it from the V an- Dev situation you're in today, clarify the outcomes of
the Bellagio cases. The VBR T moratorium was several months in
projects -- in progress, and two owners objected.
The VBRTO, one owner opposed. We had a big compromise to
75 feet, which the county attorney opined was legally defensible. And
as Commissioner Halas has pointed out, we raised about $100,000 to
get the overlay into place.
And I disagree with the comment that staff recommended against
this. They recommended against this about certain things, but at the
end, we ended up agreeing with what staff recommended, is my
recollection of exactly what happened.
I'd like to cover a little bit of Tom Pelham's opinion of the
V an- Dev claim and read a little bit of it into the record and put the
whole thing into the record and -- in addition to his CV, and I'd like to
discuss a letter that I received from Mr. Pettit on June 6th, and I'd like
to -- an Item that I thought was going to be covered before I was here
-- respond to the county attorney regarding BCC direction to evaluate
Page 78
June 14, 2005
the choice of outside counsel and discuss with us financial support.
And you see I said on the fly there because I haven't heard that
yet either, and if you'd give me a chance to come back after that
comes up, I'd appreciate it, because I obviously can't refer to it now.
And then the final thing is the bottom line, and let me show you that
first.
The way we see it, you have before you today a request for a
variance along with a hollow threat of a specious claim of dubious
value along with minor inducements which should be rej ected today.
It is time to draw a line in the sand.
Second point is, in the event that a BJH suit is filed, Tom Pelham
of Fowler, White, Boggs, Banker should be retained as outside
counsel for the county. He's fully up to speed. I don't see why we
should pay for two attorneys, and we would be happy to engage in a
written agreement in regard to our role in that situation, as well as
relieve the county of any concern about a potential conflict with us.
So let me amplify on a few of those Items and come back and
finish with what I just said is the bottom line about where we are.
The Aquaport BJH claim. I'll go through a series of these very
quickly. If you'll look at the bottom paragraph on that letter, please. I
don't have an extra copy and I'm going to have to read from that one.
Bottom line is, it's indicating -- it's a letter from Terrell Arline, who
was retained by us as a Bert Harris expert before we ran across Tom
Pelham. This was back in 2003. I think the letter is dated the 21 st of
February .
MR. MUDD: 21st of February, 2003.
DR. BING: And he's indicating to Ted Tripp that we would be
willing to support the defense of that case. And then the next letter is
a response from Tripp thanking him for doing what he did, appreciates
the client's offer, and he appreciates any help.
I think the typo at the bottom where it says your support of your
client to support Lee County's defense of this claim is really meant to
Page 79
June 14, 2005
be Collier County's. Just a minor typo.
Then March 3rd, a letter from the county to Mr. Arline
transmitting the claim, the Aquaport claim. And then -- and I'll put all
these in the record. Then the, if you will, the big money piece, which
is the opinion letter where he goes through the case, the Aquaport
case, in five pages. And this was dated March 10, 2003, and as you'll
see, was addressed to the then chairman of the county commission,
Mr. Henning.
And then there was a big gap. And in -- June 6th, Ted Tripp
acknowledged that letter and sent further information to us.
The point being is, we committed, when the commission revoked
the permit for the Aquaport 68-room, 10-story hotel, we committed to
support the Bert Harris case. This is evidence that we did pay for
outside counsel. If the opinion letter costs us the same as the opinion
letter roughly per page that we just got from Mr. Pelham, it's about
$1,000 a page.
I really don't know the total amount that we put in. But you have
to understand that a sequence of events occurred about that time, and
that is, the county permitted the Bellagio to be built, and we disagreed
strongly with the use of wedding cake setbacks, and we sued the
county because of that, and we were tossed out of Circuit Court for
reasons that we still don't understand, and this said something to the
effect that -- and I'm not an attorney. I'm a layperson.
But it said that the county could not act as an executive and
judicial and legislative unit all at one time, and it's clear to us that you
are authorized to do that by the Florida Constitution.
So we appealed that to the appellate court, and the appellate court
found in our favor and said that the county had illegally used the land
development code to allow the wedding cake. And, of course, you
have since corrected that, and wedding cakes are out of the code.
There are other things that you've taken out of the code that we
really appreciate, too, like calculation of density using submerged
Page 80
June 14, 2005
lands, space out to the middle of the street has been fixed, and so
forth.
The Circuit Court -- or the appellate court said that we had not
fulfilled all our administrative remedies, so the thing was still hanging
there. We have appealed that to the Florida Supreme Court. I believe
the other side has appealed the appellate decision also to the Florida
Supreme Court.
So the point that I think came from the dais when this subj ect
came up in the past is that, we lost the case, is not true, and it's still
ongoing. If -- we did lose it in Circuit Court, admittedly, but it's
ongoing. So I wanted those things to be on the record to clarify the
record.
Then quickly to the next subject. The Vanderbilt Beach RT
moratorium took several months to go through the process. There was
plenty of warning, if you will, on the part of the property owners that
were involved in Vanderbilt Beach, and there were only two owners
that were opposed to the moratorium coming into effect that you
placed on the R T zoning district, and the two owners were the owner
of the Vanderbilt Inn and the owner of what became now the
Vanderbilt.
Then when the Vanderbilt R TO went into place, we were only
really opposed by one owner, and that was the Vanderbilt Inn. We
made a big compromise at 75 feet. We showed you data, and I have
slides here from the original, and I won't bore you with all that, but we
were looking at 40 some feet, and then we kind of compromised to 60.
But because the county attorney said the surrounding area is zoned 75
feet, we can legally defend 75 feet.
And it was arduous for us, it was a very difficult decision, but we
capitulated at the last hearing you had and agreed to 75 feet, even
though we think that -- we would like that to be a little closer to the
heart's desire.
I pointed out that the county attorney said 75 feet was defensible.
Page 81
June 14, 2005
And now I'd like to go on from the VBRTO. There were some things
that we agreed with that were said earlier about the purpose of the
VBR TO about light and air movements and height and density, sense
of place, and so forth.
Maybe now's the time I should respond. I live in the -- one of the
two buildings that's just south of the Vanderbilt Inn, and the height to
the roof of that building is 140 some feet. It's not in excess of 200 feet.
It was built in the 19 -- late 1970s, and the zoning height at that time
in RMF -16, which we are in, was 200 feet. To the height of our
elevators' shafts is about 160 feet.
So it was permitted much less than what was allowed at the time
and is in a different zoning district.
The claimant is making the point that because we're in excess of
200 feet, which isn't true, but even at 140 feet, that they should be
entitled to the same thing out of conformity.
The whole idea of the overlay was to have up and down mixed
use, high and low level, not canyonization and not all of us at the same
height and looking like Fort Lauderdale.
On the other side of Vanderbilt Inn, which nobody mentioned
this morning, is a state park where there are no buildings higher than
one story, and that should be part of your consideration when you talk
about compatibility.
Okay. Let's go to Tom Pelham's opinion letter. I'd like to submit
the whole letter into the record. I'll be quick.
And I just want to read one short paragraph of conclusion for
your benefit. He concludes with saying, there are at least four
separate and independent grounds for peremptorily denying this Harris
Act (sic) claim. One, the claim is premature because no specific
government action has yet occurred, two, the claimant's applications
were not exempted from the terms of the moratorium.
The claimants have failed to allege or demonstrate any plausible
basis for a vested right to their proposed development, and the facts
Page 82
June 14, 2005
clearly demonstrate that they do not have a vested right under Florida
law to develop the proposed project.
I can't read and hear you at the same time, Joe, please.
The claimants have failed to demonstrate, cannot demonstrate
that they have an existing use of the property that has been
inordinately burdened, thus the claim should be rejected, and the B --
by the BCC for the reasons without necessity of evaluating whether
there have been any diminution of value as asserted by the claimant's
appraIsers.
And it's footnoted. This should not read as a waiver of our right
to challenge the dubious merits of the appraisal attached to this claim
at such time as it becomes ripe for consideration by the county.
The claimants are asking for $18 million, and to us, there should
have been or be -- been done by now, if you're serious about
considering negotiations, some independent appraisal of that. If could
be anywhere from zero to 18, I don't know, and I'm not qualified to
say. But I do know about the supply of -- the law of supply and
demand, and if there's smaller supply, the demand is higher, the price
goes up, so it may be a wash, I don't know. So here it is for the
record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How much more do you need to do, Dr.
Bing, to wrap this up?
MR. MUDD: He's on number six.
DR. BING: And this will go quick.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: You're doing good.
DR. BING: Beg your pardon?
MR. MUDD: You're doing good.
DR. BING: Okay. This is the letter that we received from Mr.
Pettit. You'll see it's addressed to me on last Monday. And the first
our counsel had a chance to look it -- it describes basically, I think,
what was presented to you here about the concessions.
Page 83
June 14, 2005
And I'd like to point out that one of the fir -- the first concession
on there is a public access. It's adjacent to an existing public access, a
state park. Also, there's a possibility that there could be an easement
that -- by implication, and we haven't had time to look into this
thoroughly, but we've asked our lawyers to look at this list, because
Monday, yesterday was the first chance they had to look at it.
And, therefore, the value of an easement on the north side of this
property for the public to access, either by being able to go into a state
park that's right next to it or on that property itself may not really be a
gift because it may be an easement by implication anyway because it's
used by the public for 30 years or whatever.
We were surprised to see this letter because we have made the
point with Mr. Pelham's opinion letter in February that this claim is
without merit from a legal perspective.
And I won't take the time now, but I've explained to all of you
about Mr. Pelham's experience, and he's the one preeminent guy on
the state on land use who gives seminars on Bert Harris Act and has
rendered an opinion that says it's without merit, and why would the
county enter into a negotiation of something without merit blows our
mind. It shows weakness on the part of the county's thinking in terms
of this claim.
So we were very surprised that particularly this kind of
negotiation has gone on to this point when we believe that the claim
should be dismissed outright.
Okay. The last thing, or number seven, I can't do because the
county attorney hasn't opined on that decision, so I'll go back to the
bottom line that I gave you the first time -- maybe you still have it --
and ask that you deny the claim.
The Item two on there about selection of outside counsel does not
have to be decided today, but if it was going to be decided today, that's
our recommendation. Item one, I think, does have to be decided
today.
Page 84
June 14, 2005
Thank you for your time, and I'm sorry I went a little bit long, but
we have no more speakers on our side.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Dr. Bing.
DR. BING: Do you have any questions of me?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioners?
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I don't have any questions of
Dr. Bing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Did you have a question or
statement?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Just to reiterate just a little
bit. This was a long, arduous study that was put together, as I said
earlier, by the residents up there in Vanderbilt that wanted to make
sure that they had some type of input in regards to what they wanted
their community to look like.
And at that we had -- I had spent a great amount of time with our
county attorney to look into, did we have the ability to lower the
building heights. And, of course, it took a number of days to get a
response back from the attorney because he wanted to research this to
every inch of his ability because of the fact there was a moratorium.
There was adequate time for anybody that wanted to make a change in
regards to getting under the wire.
My understanding was that this particular applicant was late in
getting all of his necessary paperwork in. He didn't do his homework.
And I'd like at this time to have the -- to roll just a section of video in
regards to the attorney, our county attorney, coming before the
planning commission in regards to where he thought we stood in
regards to the Bert -- or the building height changes in Vanderbilt
Beach. So if we could have that video, please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How long is this?
Page 85
June 14, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's five minutes.
(The following is an excerpt from the
planning commission video.)
"MR. WEIGEL: -- and applied the conditional use standard to
get above 100 feet, because 100 feet's the standard. Continual use is
kind of an extra officio standard. It comes in special circumstance,
arguably.
Okay. I would suggest to you, upon my review, that you
consider a building height limitation of down to 75 feet. I'll tell you
why.
We've had some discussion from Don, Mr. Schneider, indicating
that we have, you know, other districts nearby, and if I can turn to my
note here -- here we go -- he mentioned that the -- that the -- with
some of the adjoining zoning districts -- and we actually have island
zoning districts within here, I believe -- you know better than I -- that
the RMF-16 is 75 feet.
And we know that this planning commission, the Board of
County Commissioners for the C-1 through C-4 or - 5 zoning areas a
year or so ago reduced all the other zoning heights in those
commercial districts to 75 feet. By the way, we haven't had a Bert
Harris claim yet. I view the history as relatively important.
But additionally, we have the RSF-3 district of 35 feet as an
adjoining or abutting district, we have the -- Mr. Schneider mentioned
the C-3 district, which is 50 feet, as an abutting or adjoining district.
And it's not lost on me, that whether it applies directly or not, this
area is in a coastal high hazard area. So what does that mean? Well,
it's got to mean something even if it doesn't factor into the zoning
standard itself that you're looking at, but it means something. It means
-- and it may mean something in terms of evacuation, it may mean
something in terms of transportation capabilities, it may mean
something in regard to public health, safety, and welfare.
Staff indicated that they don't believe it has a health, safety,
Page 86
June 14, 2005
welfare application here. You may have the opportunity to hear from
others presenting facts to you, expert and resident and other testimony,
of an -- of a different view in regard to residing in a -- and
construction and development in a coastal high hazard.
That will be something for you to weigh based upon expertise
and the way that that information is delivered to you. But I mention
that to you as something to consider, whether you consider 75 feet or
some other -- some other factor.
This Vanderbilt Beach R T district and R T districts in Collier
County generally, of which there are few, are, I think, recognized as
having a unique quality, and that's why they're an RT district in the
first place, and I think that this commission and the Board of County
Commissioners cannot lose sight that it is a residential as well as
tourist district. It is not a pure commercial district, although it has
commercial capabilities, hotels, motels, even single-family homes.
This is something that, obviously, is not lost on you, and I just
mention it again in passing for the record.
From that standpoint, it's not your run-of-the-mill zoning district
when you talk about heights and talk about people and talk about view
corridors. Pure commercial district, I would argue, a view corridor
light, natural light access, it just can't mean the same as it does in a
residential district, or a district that has a residential component for a
reason, and this one does.
I'll finish here very quickly."
(The video excerpt is concluded.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that's the end of the video.
Thank you.
DR. BING: Mr. Chairman? Could I respond to a couple things I
said that were not part of my presentation? I just had a chance to look
at my notes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not right now, Dr. Bing. Let me get to
Commissioner Henning's question. I'll give you a chance to talk some
Page 87
June 14, 2005
more a little bit later.
DR. BING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll make sure we answer all your
questions and get your response.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make you the same
offer I did before, in the overlay create an MSTU to pay for any
expenses in this case just like the other case in Vanderbilt Beach,
MSTU to pay for any Bert 1. Harris claims or any other expenses. The
previous one cost all the taxpayers $2.5 million.
DR. BING: Well, I think the insurance company paid two
million plus on that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It cost the taxpayers -- still cost
the taxpayers money.
DR. BING: Yes. And we think that should have been appealed,
by the way.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's a lot of exposure in this
one, and I know you spent a lot of money suing the county and county
commissioners in that case. That's where you spent -- spent money is,
actually, you didn't like the decision. I understand that. But the reason
I voted against the overlay, just for this fear of exposing the taxpayers
to a great amount of money.
DR. BING: Well, Commissioner, first of all, we don't think that
you are exposed to a great amount of money. Yes, there could be
legal fees and we could discuss some participation in that, but we don't
see the 18 million as a realistic figure, and we don't think we'll lose.
I do think you take a high risk at Circuit Court. And the only
way we would go into an agreement with you is if we were assured
that if we lost in Circuit Court, we would go to the Court of Appeals to
achieve justice, which is often the case.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You create an overlay to pay for
all the expenses, you're pretty much in the steering. You can take it all
the way to the Supreme Court if you want. And if do you that and get
Page 88
June 14, 2005
the majority of the residents to agree to pay for these expenses, I'll be
behind you 100 percent, 150 percent.
DR. BING: Okay. Let me respond by a couple of things. I
know that the county has several overlays in it, in Immokalee,
Goodland, and maybe other places. I'm not familiar with any of the
details.
But I think that we, as the residents, paid for our overlay, if you
will, a great deal of expenses, and the county did as well with staff
time and so forth, but I don't believe that's the case with the other
overlays, and I don't think there's any MSTU s where the other
overlays are to pay for any claims that may result --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My answer is no.
DR. BING: No. I'm saying that we would be willing to
financially participate --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The answer is no.
DR. BING: -- in -- but the MSTU -- we have one already, but it's
designated for beautification of the area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
DR. BING: And we're at the limit on that one, the max.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The -- question for the
county attorney. At the planning commission -- I remember watching
that -- did you also offer other resolutions to this? And I think the
question was, was it part of the resolution, the 100 feet, in talking
about view corridors?
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. What you saw was an excerpt of what I
had stated to the planning commission, but the intent of my discussion
with the planning commission was for them, from part of staff,
meaning the county attorney office, to consider a reduction below 100
feet, because staff outside of the county attorney office up to this point
had had a presentation and recommendation to the planning
commission to not go below 100 feet for a few reasons including
potential for Bert Harris -- successful Bert Harris claim.
Page 89
June 14, 2005
I can't recall specifically if that particular meeting of the planning
commission -- and I think it was their second meeting prior to the
matter going to the board -- whether I talked about the conditional use.
You may have noted on the tape that it just started with me
mentioning something about 100 feet with conditional use, and that's
what existed there at the present time. There was 100 feet and the
potential for a 25-foot conditional use in that Vanderbilt RT district.
At the Board of County Commissioners' meeting, when there
came a recommendation from the planning commission and from the
staff, I recommended to the board that they, in fact, yes, go with the
75 feet, but continue to provide for a 25-foot conditional use. The
idea being that the 25- foot conditional use is not a given for any
parcel, but there is a potential there for it to come into play if a
petitioner requests and for the board to so consider, and to not put that
into the zoning code for the Vanderbilt district took away a tool that
the county could have, legislatively, to handle any unique
circumstances that may exist based on the properties that were up
there.
Additionally, my request to the board, which wasn't approved at
that time, was that the conditional use, a 25- foot conditional use on top
of a 75-foot height limitation would be for parcels that were -- I either
stated larger than three or larger than four acres. I can't recall which
number I used right now. It may well have been the four acres, but I
can't recall with certainty.
DR. BING: Could I correct the record on one thing, please?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, but we're going to have to stop
arguing about this pretty soon.
DR. BING: Right. This is -- it's not an argument. The
implication was given earlier that the mass of building, that is 100 foot
tall with 50-foot setbacks, would provide less mass than a building
that's 75 foot tall, which, in truth, is 114 feet tall when you add FEMA
and so forth in, and, therefore, the arithmetic doesn't work out if you
Page 90
June 14, 2005
calculate the mass of the building. And that is important when you
talk about air and light movement -- or air movement and light.
The other thing is, our building in RMF-16, just like all the
others, was rezoned to 75 feet in 1991. That's been in place for a long
time. And somebody mentioned that this is the only lot on the street
that this could happen on. It still would be possible for people to
combine lots, and it's been done in the past, so I don't think it's
something that we should just toss out of the side as a one-off kind of
situation.
And finally, the example that I was trying to allude to, and I think
I made my point poorly, when I said that there were two opponents to
the moratorium and one opponent to the overlay demonstrates to you
that one owner did get his SD P under the wire and one owner did not,
and that's why we're here today, basically because he could have built
his 125-foot, potentially, building prior to the moratorium going into
effect, and it was well known what was coming, and that's why the
Moore family, working with their developer, got the Vanderbilt,
which is already constructed and being sold, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
DR. BING: Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have no more public speakers,
although we can question the public speakers to the extent we need to
in order to make sure we understand the facts.
Mr. Yovanovich, would you like to make a close?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure, please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I will -- I will let Dr. Bing address
anything that is different that you might bring up.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm not going to bring up anything new.
I'm just going to respond to some comments that Dr. Bing made.
First of all, it's important that the county recognize and remember
that you did lose a Bert Harris claim and you were encouraged to
pursue that claim by the same people in the room asking you to pursue
Page 91
June 14, 2005
this claim.
It's just a fact. I'm not -- you know, another fact is, as I
understand it, you do not have any insurance that will address the
claim if you do lose, which is a factor that, I think, needs to be
factored in.
Obviously, they've got a lawyer who says that our claim is a
loser. Of course that lawyer's never going to tell you that he
guarantees he's going to win, just like I'm not going to tell my client I
guarantee we're going to win. I like my odds, I like my chances, and
we think that there's significant exposure to the county.
The county did do an economic analysis of the potential loss to
our property by adoption of the overlay. Dr. Fishkind made the
presentation. His organization made the presentation, and it's
consistent with the dollars that we are saying is in our claim.
Another factor that you need to factor into is that we have a
contract to sell the property. We pay -- we get paid one price at a
200- foot zoning height and a different price for a 75 - foot zoning
height, and the spread between the two prices is $20 million. So that's
out there. It's a fact that I think you need to understand in factoring
into your decision.
The argument that there's an easement by implication and that
somehow you've already got beach access and you're going to win
that, you know, good luck. You're not going to win that easement by
implication. You don't have access to the beach. We're proposing
beach access.
And I think Dr. Bing said that you do have a high risk in the
Circuit Court and that you would have to move on to the appellate
court and hopefully win there on the claim.
I had to get all that on the record. It's not by any means a threat.
We are where we are. You know, we are proposing what I think is
fair. Our property owner had a right to go to 100 feet. He's just asking
to be able to do that, and in return for that, he's willing to give some
Page 92
June 14, 2005
public benefit.
I think Dr. Bing is incorrect in his assertion that someone else can
now come in and go to 100 feet by accumulating the properties. The
Bert Harris Act says that at the time the government takes its action,
the property value needed to reflect a higher value because of a right
that could occur, go to 100 feet. Nobody else had put together parcels
that would get them to 100 feet at the time you adopted the regulation.
So you have no other threat of a Bert Harris claim out there.
We're an isolated parcel of property, shouldn't have been in the
overlay in the first place. Had you followed the county attorney's
office advice and included a conditional use process, we could have
come in, got to 100 feet, and everybody would have been happy and
been fine. We think what we're proposing is reasonable, takes the
county out of -- you'll get a release, takes the county out of risk for a
big lawsuit, and the public gets beach access, which the public needs.
And I don't think I said anything new, and I think I just addressed
Mr. -- Dr. Bing's, sorry, statements. And with that, I'll answer any
questions regarding the proposal that's on the table.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a whole bunch of questions
from commissioners. I think Commissioner Henning was first.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question of staff, so if I
could leave my light on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question of staff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You want to do it now?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, it's up to you.
Does this Item come back as far as a settlement agreement?
Does it come back to the Board of Commissioners? And if so, what
would be the time frame?
MR. PETTIT: Commissioners, as I understand and envision this
process, you would, today, give Ms. Worthington and me direction to
prepare a written proposal to the developer. The developer can accept,
Page 93
June 14, 2005
reject, or counter, I suppose, just like you would in any situation like
that.
What we've -- the description -- the proposal that Ms.
Worthington described to you is one the developer has represented to
us it would accept, and I think Mr. Yovanovich said that here today
also.
But, yes, it would come back because it would have to -- we
would be seeking -- if there was an acceptance of any proposal you
offer, we would probably request that you authorize settlement on
those terms and authorize the chairman to execute appropriate
settlement documents reflecting those terms.
So I guess I'm just -- I've answered myself. It wouldn't come back
if that's what the board directed us to do and simply authorized the
chairman to authorize a written settlement agreement reflecting the
terms that the board would agree to today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. PETTIT: If the terms were changed, obviously if the board
made an offer and Mr. Y ovanovich said, well, that's close, but we
think this, we would have to come back and address that again with
. .
you In open sessIon.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the -- so the board can make
a decision to bring it back in whatever scenario. And if it does
change, if that party doesn't agree, it has to come back anyways as far
as a counteroffer?
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, I'll respond, and that is, if you
make an offer today pursuant to the Bert Harris law, and it's accepted,
particularly if Mr. Y ovanovich, on behalf of his client says we accept
that, then I don't expect that there is a need for anything to come back
to you for further discussion or change because you have made an
offer and it's been accepted.
But as Mr. Pettit indicated, if you make -- all we're here for today
technically is to make an offer, and that offer begs for, in essence,
Page 94
June 14, 2005
pardon that term, it looks for an acceptance for Mr. Y ovanovich on
behalf of his client.
Now, to the extent that he acknowledges that his offer that you
mayor may not make is compatible, the record would -- could tend to
reflect today that there's no need for any further discussion but merely
a creation of the appropriate documents to memorialize the offer and
acceptance that's been done today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Mr. Yovanovich, if I may
ask questions of him.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure. Yeah,
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Yovanovich, when this
originally came to us, it came to us, what was it, as a variance? I'm
trying to remember.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, it never got to you. What happened
was, is you adopted a moratorium, so we could not come in -- the
proposal that was being discussed at that time was a conditional use to
go to 125 feet as well as a private beach club. Then the moratorium
came In.
We would have had to redo our entire plans to come down to 100
feet. You imposed a moratorium, so we were not allowed to come in
and submit anything at 100 feet, and that's what was allowed at the
time while we were discussing what, if anything, was going to change
on the overlay . Nothing changed until the overlay was adopted.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Question, when this
originally came to us and you were telling us what the amenities
would be that you would offer to the residents of Collier County if we
approved it at that time or allowed it to go forward, how does that
differ from what you're offering now?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, what -- we're offering you beach
access like we offered before.
Page 95
June 14, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly the same, right down
the line?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we didn't give -- we never got into
the details. I mean, we're talking about a 20- foot wide beach access. I
don't think we were talking that wide originally, so we've gone up.
We talked about the turnaround, which was not discussed before,
which is new. The contributions towards rest room facilities, those are
all new, so I would say they're probably above.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So, in other words, what you're
coming to the table with now is over and above what was offered to us
originally; is that correct?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's my understanding, Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Schmitt is nodding his head.
I tell you some of my concerns. There's many concerns. One is
the residents there and everything that's led up to this point in time.
I'm also concerned that earlier today we had an issue about Vanderbilt
and the access points and who has the right to access the public beach,
you know, and it was putting up to question.
Now, if the -- if they're successful with their lawsuit -- and let's
be honest about it, we don't know if they're going to be successful or
not. We're not attorneys and we're definitely not fortunetellers,
although sometimes I wonder if that's not an honorable profession
compared to what we're trying to do now. Where did I go with that?
No, my concern is, is that -- and this is just looking out for the
public's best interest. If we lose, or even if the settlement isn't 10,000
or 20,000 -- $20 million, it doesn't even go that high. I mean, the
judge could find for you for whatever.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Even ifhe found for you for a
million dollars or 100,000, he wouldn't force upon you, in any
likelihood, the beach access?
Page 96
June 14, 2005
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I can assure you that there will-- if we go
the Bert Harris litigation route, a result that will not happen is beach
access. You will not have an opportunity to get beach access. We'll
just be fighting over dollars at that point.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Let me ask a question of
the county attorney, then I'll give this up for now.
Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We heard say that if we fought
this that our chances of getting beach access would be -- because of
prescribed easement would be quite high; is that true or is that
something of great concern or --
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, Dr. Bing talked about an easement
by implication. In '91 and '94 I spoke to this -- and again this past fall
in October, I spoke to this board about prescriptive easements, which I
think is essentially what he may be talking about where there is an
attempt by a type of public or the county on behalf of the public
attempting to show in court and get a favorable ruling in court that a
particular traveled path of access to the beach is subj ect to be declared
by a court of law to have become an easement to the right of the
public, in the right of the public to -- to continue to use it,
notwithstanding what the owner claims at the more present point in
time.
What comes into play typically here is questions of adverse use,
that is, has the public use been adverse to the underlying owner of the
property who may contest a judicial declaration of access on that
property .
And to the extent that there may have been consensual use, and I
expect -- and Mr. Y ovanovich or others correct me -- if the consensual
use has been by virtue of using the Tiki bar area or on the north side
where the owner of the premises has consented to the use, that
militates against a successful conclusion of public access because it's
Page 97
June 14, 2005
been a consensual and offered use by the underlying landowner.
Typically there has to be elements of hostility or adverse use by
persons crossing over a parcel that may have -- to some degree may
have no trespassing or other kinds of physical monuments on there
that would maybe, perhaps, inhibit the process or attempt to stop it.
So these things are not easy to prove, and that's what I said in
1991 when I was addressing Marco Island Beach access with Crescent
Condominiums off of Seawinds Court, and it still pertains today.
If it's not -- if we use that term slam dunk, this is not one of them.
And so as Mr. Yovanovich indicated -- and I'm not speaking pro or
con settlement, but just in terms of reality.
If there's a Bert Harris case based upon the denial of reaching
settlement here, it's purely a dollars type case at that point in time. A
court will not be awarding beach access or making any determination
of any of the other proposals toward the settlement here, such as
$500,000 or enhanced turnaround and things of that nature. That's not
what the Bert Harris lawsuit is about. It's about absolute -- a
consideration of the absolute reduction in value if liability is first
found against the government, a jury trial to determine if, in fact --
what that value, and it becomes a battle of appraisers and credibility
and things of that nature.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question -- one last follow-up
question. If we went with it and forced them to stay with 75 foot, is
there some way that we could require them at the time of permitting
and everything to give us the beach access?
MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely not.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: It would just go forward under the code. You,
the board, would never see it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It's Fortuneteller Halas' turn now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I just want to make sure that
before there's any decisions here made that we get a picture of exactly
Page 98
June 14, 2005
what is on the table at this point in time.
I can also tell you that in regards to the turnaround, that the
Vanderbilt MSTU tried diligently to work with the state park in
putting a turnaround there and was very unsuccessful in gaining any
support from the state park. So I think that adds into it.
And oh, by the way, if you put a turnaround there, there is about
1 7 parking spots that are going to be lost, and those parking spots are
highly prized.
Now, of course, the present owner of the Vanderbilt Inn has been
so gracious to allow people of the -- of Collier County to park there
because it's -- it's an added -- it's added in regards to -- it's very close
to the beach in conjunction with getting to the beach.
And, of course, that -- that owner charges a fee, which is taken
off your bill if you're into beverages or food. But I just want to let
everyone know that you have to be careful in regards to what you're
going to accept.
I think this Board of County Commissioners a few years ago
realized that another developer had come forward and had made
promises in regards to building a cantilever walkway over a bridge up
in the Vanderbilt area, and then upon finding out what the real
expense was going to be, basically wrote a check and said, you figure
it out, you fix it.
I'm concerned that with the 20 feet of beach access, I don't think
it's enough. I think there has to -- if there is going to be any
compromise, it has to be increased, because if you want to put up rest
rooms, if you want to put up a concession stand or even a couple of
showers, that's not going to be adequately addressed in 20 feet.
So before you start jumping and thinking that we're getting
something for nothing -- and, of course, oh, the $500,000. So the way
I'm looking at this is that it's like taking a one-pound flour sack and
trying to put four pounds of flour in it. I just don't think there's
enough on the table there to even, at this point in time, even consider
Page 99
June 14, 2005
going with any -- any compromises here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're not going to allow
anybody else to debate this at this time, are we?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I sure hope not. I can't imagine that
there's any more facts that we need to consider here. You know what's
proposed, and the rest of it is just conjecture as to who is going to win
this lawsuit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, right. I just don't want to
get this into --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Right. We've got to get down to the
point of making a decision.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm ready to end this right
now. I'm going to make a motion, but first of all I want to say, I
believe Mr. Pelham is a reputable, articulate attorney. I enjoyed his
comments when we were discussing this overlay.
But from what I understand from our county attorney, he wasn't
presented with all the facts when he rendered an opinion in this case,
and I'm concerned we're relying on an attorney's opinion that the
attorney didn't get all the facts.
And I will still support the overlay if the residents wish to create
an MSTU to pay for any damages in a claim. But I think it's in the
best interest of the taxpayers to settle this.
So I'm going to make a motion to approve on what our attorney
and outside counsel has presented as far as the settlement offer along
with our community development administrator's input and planning
director's input, and another caveat, that we have enough area for
public facilities such as rest rooms and other kind of uses like
Commissioner Halas has stated, but no less than what is being offered.
I think it's 20 feet. No less than 20 feet. That's my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Henning to approve essentially the compromise that is
Page 100
June 14, 2005
on the table that has been presented to us.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it for discussion
purposes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta seconded
it.
We have additional discussion.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: As I said, I put my light on because
I was going to make a motion that we don't do anything at this point in
time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion on the table,
however. We have to dispose of it.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'd like to ask Commissioner
Halas why he feels a good time -- this is a good time not to do
anything right now. Does that mean not to -- not to make any
decisions at all?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct. I think that we
should get outside counsel on this, and the reason being is that there
was a lot of diligence put forth.
And as I stated earlier, this applicant that claims he has a strong
Bert Harris suit -- and I am not an attorney. I'm just a layperson -- but
there was adequate time for them to get their necessary paperwork and
other Items that needed to be done prior to the moratorium. That's
where I stand on this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm going to go back to Dr. Bing.
He had asked for a chance to address either anything new that had
been brought up or anything that he felt was inaccurate. I don't want
to debate on the motion right now, okay.
DR. BING: Several new things came up in Rich's comments.
One, he mentioned that the county does not have insurance. I came
Page 101
June 14, 2005
from the business background, and it amazes me that that would be a
rationale to accept a compromise in this situation. I don't know
anything about the insurance business here, but to me that shouldn't be
a factor in your decision, and it's a separate issue for another day.
He mentioned Mr. Fishkind's economic analysis of the situation
at the Vanderbilt Inn and didn't mention that we brought an economist
in that debunked Mr. Fishkind -- Dr. Fishkind's analysis. I think that's
a matter of view of the eye of the beholder. It's just like the 18
million. Those were two things that were brought up.
A third thing that was brought up, I think when Commissioner
Coletta was asking a question of the claimant, he said something about
your original proposal or offer. There had not been a site development
plan submitted to the county until after the moratorium went into
effect, so it's moot, what was brought up at that point.
The county attorney opined that he thought I was speaking about
a prescriptive easement. In statute 161.55, parens 5, there is another
form of easement called easement by implication. And I'm sorry we
have not had time to fully evaluate that, but we do have an indication
that it's a potential thing, and it deals with any other legal means rather
than by adverse occupation or access.
So those are new things that came on the table after that, and
something was also mentioned about, we encouraged you to pursue
the Aquaport Bert Harris claim, and we were blind-sided by the
settlement. We would have encouraged you to appeal that. And I
realize the insurance company played a role in that and so forth, but I
think it has put a dangerous situation in front of you for now and the
future, as well as this claim, because Bert Harris is being misused and
abused in this county.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
DR. BING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Dr. Bing.
Okay. We have a motion on the floor.
Page 102
June 14, 2005
Oh, County Attorney? Sorry.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. You've had discussion both from
outside counsel, Ms. Worthington, and Susan Murray, which talked in
terms of the public interest served by the Vanderbilt Beach R T
overlay and the land development code, and I would ask the motion
maker, having made the motion, if, in fact, the motion would include
these statements that were made on the record, as an underlying part
of the motion, and I think it's important for the board to understand the
consideration so that you can, in fact, make a more fully informed
vote.
It was stated that the goal of the overlay was to protect view
corridors, light and air movements between the Gulf and the lagoon,
and prevent the canyonization of Gulfshore Drive. The proposal,
arguably, increases the view corridors, light and air movements, and
decreases canyonization by increasing the open space between the
new building and the existing neighboring building and between the
new building and Gulfshore Drive. That's in terms of, remember, the
front and the side and rear yard setbacks.
Another goal of the overlay was to encourage redevelopment
sensitive to existing scale, compatibility, and sense of place, and you
had discussion about what was to the north, what was to the south of
this particular building.
The proposal before you for this 100- foot zoned building is --
statement is, it's more in scale and compatible with the two buildings
on the adjacent property to the south, which are in excess of -- and
we've had varying discussion of whether it's 144, 146 feet, or 200 feet.
We do know that it's in excess of 100 something feet tall.
The sense of place is preserved by providing the public with
continued access to the beach over the dedicated and improved
easement otherwise lost through development at the 75-foot height
level.
Another goal of the LDC is to facilitate the adequate and efficient
Page 103
June 14, 2005
provision of recreational facilities and conserve, develop, utilize, and
protect natural resources. This is ordinance 04-01, section 2 under the
findings of fact.
The proposal ergo the motion, arguably, contemplates a 20-foot
wide easement along the northern boundary of the property with an
additional easement at the beach -- at the beach terminus, that's the
end, for vehicular turnaround, along with $500,000 for improvements
such as bathrooms, landscaping, seating, et cetera, providing the
public with increased convenient perpetual beach access not subject to
loss through development.
So I read those for the record to see if the motion maker includes
those findings as part of the motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a part of my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. How about the second,
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Part of my second, although I'd
like to see 25 feet rather than 20.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I think -- I was
hoping that it would be just adequate for the rest room facilities and
the like. I don't have the expert (sic) like that. It could be more than
25 feet, Commissioner, and that's why I made that a part of my
motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But if they're not bound by
more than 20 feet, I mean, that's up to them to make that decision.
That's --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that we have staff to --
you know, parks and rec. staff to determine what is -- what the needs
are and what is adequate as far as footage.
Am I correct, Marla? Do you have staff to do that?
MS. RAMSEY: Yes. For the record, Marla Ramsey. Joe Delate
has done a schematic on this that shows that you can put in two family
Page 104
June 14, 2005
bathrooms which would be about 10 feet wide by 20 or so feet long
and then have some kind of covered overlay area over the rest of the
access point in order to provide like a drop-off area. So we have been
able to get two family bathrooms in that 20 into the easement as we
looked at it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that includes outside
showers?
MS. RAMSEY: Yes. They're on, like, the end of the building,
so it would be linear going down the pathway.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're saying that 20-foot
would be more than adequate to meet the needs of the public for 20,
25 years?
MS. RAMSEY: I would use the word adequate, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Don't you think it would be better
to get 30 feet so we get a concession stand in there?
MS. RAMSEY: Given what we were asked to look at, we were
given 20 feet. We feel that we can put in two family bathrooms with
an overhang, and the concession elements would be limited to vending
machines.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is a setup.
MS. RAMSEY: So we were asked just to look at what we were
presented, and we can put in a rest room facility with vending
machines.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But his question was, you know,
would 30 feet do a more adequate job? Would it really serve the needs
of the public for the next 25 years?
MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. I mean, anything's, you know, better than
20. I mean, 50's better than 20.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: A hundred is better.
MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. You know, but looking at what we were
given to look at, yes. I mean, can we build it for 500,000 is probably
Page 105
June 14, 2005
the other question, is probably not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, do you
want me to change my motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'll tell you what, I think
that -- I don't know if they've got three votes, to be honest with you,
Commissioner Henning. It might behoove the petitioner to rethink
this and see if there's something more they can do. It would certainly
help to assure that we're going to come up with what we need to make
it happen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think the petitioner is the county
in this particular case.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, okay. The benefactor of
the findings if we find in their favor. Whatever you want to call the
gentleman.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, while Rich is
coming up, this is your proposal to make to the property owner
representative today. And to the extent that there may be an agreement
on the floor, you know, has certain positive aspects.
But to the extent that you know what they will accept, that's one
thing. If you wish to change it, that's another.
And I might be so forward as when we talk about 300 feet of
beach access that's 20 feet wide, it would appear to me that the facility
issues you're talking about would not necessarily require 25 or 30 feet
wide for the whole 300 feet, but you may be looking for a bulge at one
point, probably closer to the front point of where the access easement
reaches the road area, and that, perhaps, that is something that you can
consider even on the floor with the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could you--
MR. WEIGEL: -- representative.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- come up with something that
may sound a little more appealing?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I talked to Marla. You need to
Page 106
June 14, 2005
understand, we have pool facilities that we need to also fit in and deal
with setback issues.
I talked to Marla. She believes she can do everything she needs
to do in 25 feet, and we'll do that for however long the easement needs
to be to fit that. I mean, if they need the whole 300 feet in length,
that's fine. But if you don't, we would like that to be as short a length
as possible. But 25 feet should be more than enough to address all the
facilities for now and well into the future.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's what we're trying to
do, Mr. Y ovanovich.
Would you make that part of your motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's -- I amend my motion to
include that 25 feet.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I amend my second to that, too,
and I appreciate Commissioner Halas' direction on that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And so it's an increase from 20 to 25 feet
in width.
Okay. Any further discussion on this issue?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The motion fails 3-2, with
Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Coletta voting in the
affirmative.
Is there --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we don't do
Page 107
June 14, 2005
anything at this point in time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There's a motion to reject the
settlement proposal by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm going to change my motion to
say we are not going to make any changes at this time.
MR. PETTIT: Yeah, that -- Mike Pettit, for the record. I just
wanted to clarify Commissioner Halas' motion, and I think he's done
that by saying we would make no changes in the prior actions of the
board with respect to the overlay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Isn't that the same as rejecting
your recommendation that's before us today?
MR. PETTIT: I didn't make a recommendation to the board
today. I brought -- I brought, pursuant to statute in my professional
ethics, a proposal that I obtained from the developer, which the
developer indicated he would accept to withdraw his Bert Harris Act
claim.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then there's a motion not to take
any action at all today, or not to change the action previously taken by
the board by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Opposed, by like sign.
Aye
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that fails.
Page 108
June 14, 2005
It is -- is there a possibility for a further compromise on this
issue?
And, you know, it's always good, I think, to have a happy
neighborhood, and if there's something that can be done that will get
closer to the community's needs, you might pick up the necessary
votes to get this done, like splitting the difference in the height
between 75 and 100 feet, I don't know.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner, if I can, can we continue
this Item until the next meeting? That will give us an opportunity to
discuss some other alternatives?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have some time to do that, but if we
can do that, I would appreciate that opportunity.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we continue it to a later
time in today's meeting? I mean, we've got a two-day meeting the
next meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would be happy to spend whatever
time we need today to resolve this --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- very important issue, because the thing
I hate most is paying lawyers, and if we can find some way of
avoiding that and reaching a reasonable compromise, I would be
willing to take the time to do it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Say five?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is it something you think you can do
today?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can talk to them, and if we can come
back at the end of the meeting or later on in the meeting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's make it time certain
so that the residents know when we're going to discuss this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Five o'clock today?
Page 109
June 14, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Five?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Or you want to make it a little earlier?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I do have one hearing this afternoon,
so I would like -- five o'clock would give us enough time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's shoot in at five o'clock for a
time certain this afternoon.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to continue to five p.m.
today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: By Commissioner Henning, a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: A second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas opposes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to ask one question
now. Was this to give direction to the individuals that were working
with the developer and also to work with the residents or the
spokesman for the opposing side, being Dr. Bing?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It would appear to me that if we're going
to try to get a compromise, we should try to get input from everybody
who has a position on this issue.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think that's the direction we
should give is that the individual that has the concerns over his
property versus the individuals that work diligently in regards to
trying to establish in this overlay over a two-year period, and it looks
to me like that's what they're working at (sic) right now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then hopefully it will happen.
Page 110
June 14, 2005
Okay. We have solved this particular problem. Now we're going to
take a --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Not really.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Temporarily.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to take a break for lunch.
We'll be back here at 1:33.
(Luncheon recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, County Manager.
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2005-28: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER
74 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 2001-13
(THE COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE
ORDINANCE, AS AMENDED) PROVIDING FOR THE
ADOPTION OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT IMP ACT FEE WITH A
DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE OF AUGUST 1. 2005 - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, this brings us to advertised public
hearings, and the first Item 8A. It's a recommendation that the Board
of County Commissioners adopt an ordinance amending chapter 74 of
the Collier County Codes of Law and Ordinances as amended by
ordinance number 2001-13, the Collier County Consolidated Impact
Fee Ordinance as amended; providing for the adoption of law
enforcement impact fee with a delayed effective date of August 1,
2005.
And Ms. Amy Patterson, your Impact Fee Coordinator, will
present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Amy, are we going through all
Page 111
June 14, 2005
the technical details here, or are we just going to get to the bottom
line?
MS. PATTERSON: Amy Patterson, for the record. I have
Tindale-Oliver are the consultants. Mr. Steve Tindale and Ms.
Nilgunkamp are here today. They do have a brief presentation, if
you'd like. We could go through as much detail or as little as you'd
like.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'd prefer not to go through the detail,
but certainly get to the bottom line --
MS. PATTERSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and assure us that it's justified, I think,
is the important thing.
MS. PATTERSON: Sure. I just have one housekeeping matter
for the record. When we brought forward the advertising for this Item,
there also are some appendixes attached to that ordinance, and there
was one Item that was changed. It is reflective in your packet as the
correct number for one of the line Items in the fee schedule, and the
one that will be forwarded to the state is also corrected.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you, Amy.
MS . PATTERSON: Just a matter for the record. With that, I'll
turn it over to Mr. Steve Tindale from Tindale-Oliver, and he has a
brief presentation for you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you.
MR. TINDALE: Good afternoon. Steve Tindale with
Tindale-Oliver. If you'd like, I can just verbalize it very briefly and
not go through all the slides in terms of what we've done. Would that
be better?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That would be helpful. Unless you really
want to go through it here.
MR. TINDALE: I think I'm more than willing.
Very briefly, we reviewed the sheriff in terms of their
construction cost, we looked at the buildings, the land, and all the
Page 112
June 14, 2005
Items that goes in, provided that you have to build to have -- to meet
new demand in terms of the population growth.
We looked at your budget in terms of the money you're spending,
in terms of taxes that need to be credited. Impact fees allow you to
charge the fee, but you can't double-charge. We have a credit
mechanism.
I can very briefly tell you that the assets you have in relationship
to other counties I've seen, you have significant capital assets,
probably about 30 percent more than I'm used to seeing per person, so
you've done a good job of building the facilities that you have.
The credit I see is also very large. You're spending a substantial
amount of money each year to provide new expansion. So between
the substantial asset you have and the credit, the fee comes out to be a
fairly minor fee compared to some communities.
The final fee, I'll just read those out. A single-family homes,
$95; office -- an average office is $92 per thousand square foot; retail's
277; and then you have some of these high uses, like fast-food
restaurants are more significant.
Everything's been documented. The costs have been document.
The credits been documented. The standards been documented.
We've worked with the sheriffs staff very closely in terms of all the
information.
So that's a very brief description of what we've done. I don't
think there's anything real controversial in the -- in the analysis.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Impact fees in general, I don't
understand. Here's my analogy on land uses. The residential demand
the commercial, the services, but yet the impact fees are -- all our
impact fees on commercial are much higher on commercial than it is
residential, but yet the residential is driving the demand for the
commercial use.
MR. TINDALE: I don't think that's true in law enforcement. I
Page 113
June 14, 2005
mean, you have people -- I guess it's the chicken and the egg. Do
people move here because there's a job or do the jobs move here
because there's residents? But on the sheriffs impact fees, I don't
believe they're getting most of their calls to go to homes from what
we've seen.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you don't mind me asking,
where do you live?
MR. TINDALE: I live in Hillsborough County.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That has a beach. That's
what I hear some people move here for is the beach, the weather. I
don't think they came here because the Barnett Bank is here or a Bank
America, same bank they have up north.
MR. TINDALE: Well, I don't -- I mean, it's a philosophical issue
about which comes first, but I think impact fees are blind to who gets
here first. It's more of a service that we deliver to the different uses,
not who got here first, but who the demand for service is. And the
fee's based on more of the relationship of the command for services
than it is who -- you know, who causes which one to come in what
order.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion for approval of
this impact fee.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion for approval by
Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any further discussion?
Do we have any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any further decision?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
Page 114
June 14, 2005
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.
Thank you very much, Mr. Tindale. Good job.
MR. TINDALE: Thank you.
Item #8B
RESOLUTION 2005-234A: SRA-04-AR-6896, ALAN D.
REYNOLDS OF WILSONMILLER, INC., REPRESENTING NEW
TOWN DEVELOPMENT, LLLP, REQUESTING A
DESIGNATION OF A STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA (SRA)
APPLICATION FOR 5,027 ACRES OF LAND PURSUANT TO
THE REGULATIONS OF THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP
AREA (RLSA) ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR
A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, A MIXED-USE
TOWN CENTER, A COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT,
MEDICAL OFFICE, WETLAND PRESERVE AREAS AND
PARKLANDS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND A
UNIVERSITY. COMPANION ITEM: DRI-04-AR-6293-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next Item is number -- is Item number 8B, and
I'm going to read 8B and 8C together.
8B, this Item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure be provided by commission members. It's
Page 115
June 14,2005
SRA-04-AR-6896, Alan D. Reynolds of Wilson Miller, Inc.,
representing New Town Development, LLLP, requesting a
designation of a stewardship receiving area (SRA) application for
5,027 acres of land pursuant to the regulations of the rural lands
stewardship area (RLSA) zoning overlay district to allow for a mix of
residential neighborhoods, a mixed-use town center, a community
facilities district, medical office, wetland preserve areas and
parklands, public and private schools, and a university.
This is a companion Item to the DRI-04-AR-6293, which I am
about to read, which is Item 8C. This Item also requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commissioner members.
It's DRI-04-AR-6293, New Town Development, LLP,
represented by George L. Varnadoe, of Cheffy, Passidimo --
Passidomo, Wilson, and Johnson, requesting approval of a
development order for the Town of Ave Maria development of
regional impact DRI to allow for a mix of residential neighborhoods, a
mixed-use town center, a community facilities district, medical office,
wetland preserve areas and parklands, public and private schools, and
a university.
And, again, this is a companion to 8B, which was the
SRA-04-AR-6896.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr.
Mudd.
Would all those who intend to deliver testimony in this petition
please rise to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If all these people are going to give
testimony, we may as well -- we may as well cancel everything for the
rest of the afternoon. I hope something we do will convince you that
we don't need to spend the next four hours with public testimony.
But nevertheless, this is an Item that has been before the county
Page 116
June 14, 2005
commission and our staff for a long, long time. It's come before us in
stages over a long period of time.
We all have ex parte disclosures. And I'll start with
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you, Chairman. On both of
these Items, Band C, I've had numerous meetings, correspondence,
and e-mails in regards to this, and it's all located in my file. So if
anybody needs to look at anything, it's here. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I don't think there's been
an Item since I've been a commissioner that I've had as many
meetings, correspondence, e-mails, phone calls, many, many times.
It's true with both Items.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, same with me. I've had many
meetings, not only here at this office, but also at my Marco office,
correspondence, a lot of correspondence, e-mails, phone calls, I've
spoken with staff, I've spoken to the petitioner, so I've spent a lot of
time on this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Part of the -- as a member of the
regional planning commission, I heard this Item at a previous date. I
met with the CEO of Barron Collier Corporation and Mark Morton of
the Barron Corporation. I've had some e-mail exchanges, I've talked
to staff, I watched some of the planning commission meeting when
this came up, I met with a planning commission member, member
Mark Strain, on this Item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I also have had e-mails, telephone
calls, correspondence, meetings with petitioners, residents, staff, about
this issue over a couple of years. If the public has any concern that we
do not, today, go through this entire project in great detail, it's because
that project has been coming before us in stages over a very long
Page 11 7
June 14, 2005
period of time, and that's the way these projects are supposed to work,
and this is another stage in the process of getting the Ave Maria
University and village approved and underway.
So we have booklets that are probably at least, what, five or six
inches thick. We have two volumes of them all the backup related to
this particular petition today. But we have thoroughly gone through
these things in the past, and it's not likely we'll go through all the
detail here today.
And with that, let's get started with the hearing. Who's going to
be first to speak? Will it be Mr. Varnadoe?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have three minutes, George.
MR. VARNADOE: God, I wish. For the record, George
Varnadoe, law firm ofCheffy, Passidomo, Wilson, and Johnson, here
today representing Ave Maria Development, LLLP.
Certainly pleased and proud to be part of the team effort to bring
a new university and town to Collier County. This hearing just seems
to me like the culmination of a lot of hard work by a lot of dedicated
people over the past two or three years, and I, for one, certainly
appreciate your indulgence in hearing us on at least three occasions
with regard to this.
We're requesting SRA designation -- stewardship receiving area
designation for the Town of Ave Maria and approval of a DRI
development order for the town under the RLSA, rural land
stewardship area, overlay program. What a segue.
This morning the county received a better community award
from 1000 Friends of Florida, and this afternoon we bring to you the
first implementation of that program for your approval.
I want to quote just very quickly from one of their press releases
from 1000 Friends of Florida. This pioneering plan includes
innovative incentives to encourage the private protection of natural
resources and agricultural lands and promote compact and sustainable
Page 118
June 14, 2005
development.
I couldn't have said it better if I'd of written it myself, but we
certainly appreciate their award, and I hope you all realize how rare
those are. 1000 Friends of Florida, as they told you, is probably one
of the most aggressive growth management organizations of the state,
and those don't come lightly. So I really applaud the county for that.
I would be remiss if I didn't take this opportunity to thank staff.
We have spent -- without naming everybody, we have spent countless
hours in meetings with all your planning staff and your environmental
staff and transportation staff and other staff to work out any issues or
problems anybody had with the project. It was that coordinated effort
that brings you this very clean recommendation for approval that's
before you today.
We have available experts in their various fields of discipline to
respond to questions, and most of those people you saw raise their
hands won't be testifying unless you ask some questions, Mr. Coyle,
that require their field of expertise. But they are here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That sounds like a threat, George.
MR. VARNADOE: No, it's a promise.
We're going to have two main presenters. Alan Reynolds, the
CEO of Wilson Miller, is going to describe how the Ave Maria SSAs,
the stewardship sending areas, and the stewardship receiving areas
implement the rural land stewardship area overlay program. He's
going to tell you the current status of Ave Maria, and he's also going
to tell you how Ave Maria meets the specific criteria of the RLSA
overlay district relating to the designation of our stewardship receiving
area.
And then Anita Jenkins, who's the planning manager at
WilsonMiller will describe the town plan, including the university, so
you get some idea what's going to be going on out there. After that
I've got a couple little issues I need to address either before or after
your staff makes their presentation, and then we'll get to your
Page 119
June 14, 2005
questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. VARNADOE: Thank you. Alan?
MR. REYNOLDS: Good afternoon.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good afternoon, Alan.
MR. REYNOLDS: Without spending too much time going
through history that I know you're quite familiar with, I thought it
would be good just to spend a few minutes and set the stage for what
you're considering here today.
You all know that the rural land stewardship program was set up
to balance three sometimes competing interests, and that is protecting
natural resources, looking for the long-term viability of agriculture,
and coming up with a better way to accommodate population growth,
and to that end, you all adopted and created an overlay within the
200,000 acres in the northeast corner of Collier County.
And I know many of you lived this history, and I'm not going to
go through the history, but I think it is important to understand that the
-- what we're asking for today builds on five to six years of work
moving from a very long-range strategic encompassing planning
process down now to a specific proposal to implement that plan.
I think it is noteworthy though that this is a plan that has really
enjoyed probably as much input as anything that Collier County has
done in a long, long time from various interest groups. And
throughout this entire process, it's always been about trying to balance
individual interests and needs to try to come up with a better whole
that will work over the long-term.
You, of course, not only have approved an overlay to your
comprehensive plan, you've approved a land development code.
There is a whole section in your code that specifies both the process
that we have to follow and the design standards that we use in putting
together towns within the rural land stewardship area.
Last year in the spring, you all acted upon a first phase of this
Page 120
June 14, 2005
Town of Ave Maria in order for us to keep the process moving for the
university, and that process is underway now.
So we are here today with the balance of the town dealing with
both the receiving area -- earlier this morning you adopted on your
summary agenda the last sending area that was needed to generate the
credits for the Town of Ave Maria, and I'll talk a little bit about that
but not get into a lot of detail.
But I do think it's important to just go back to the basic way that
stewardship works, and that is that it's a voluntary program. Once you
set the overlay up, nobody is compelled to use this program unless
they opt to do so by coming to you with a specific application for
designation, as we're doing today.
It encourages property owners to set aside the land that has the
highest value for natural resources. It protects very large-scale
acreages with the most important context for environmental protection
in the northeast part of Collier County. And then using the same
methodology and science, it directs development to places that have
the lowest natural resource value, and in that way, it really balances
the competing needs that sometimes come into conflict with respect to
natural resource protection and accommodating people and population
growth.
A stewardship receiving area, like the one we're asking for today,
can only be approved by the county commission once an applicant
shows that they can secure sufficient credits from sending areas in
order to entitle that particular town or village that's being proposed.
And I won't spend a lot of time, again, with how this all works
because I know you're very familiar with it. But it is significant to
always go back to the strategy and the goal that was set, which is that
we're trying to use incentives rather than public acquisition to protect
140 square miles of Eastern Collier County as one of the elements of
rural lands stewardship.
So how does that relates to the Town of Ave Maria? There are
Page 121
June 14, 2005
going to be six -- or actually there are now six stewardship sending
areas that generate the credits for Ave Maria. Those six sending areas
total about 17,000 acres of land.
There are five that, prior to today, had already been approved by
the county commission, and you can see on this map sending areas
one and two, which are in Camp Keais Strand, sending areas three,
four, and five, which are in the Okaloacoochee Slough, and sending
area six is the one that was approved this morning by the county
commission, and this is the area that abuts the Florida Panther
National Wildlife Refuge immediately to the south.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And, Alan, if I could just interject
something. For the public's knowledge, a sending area is an area that
is generally classified as environmentally sensitive, and those are the
areas where development will not be taking place. And a receiving
area is a place that is not environmentally sensitive, and that's where
the development will be restricted?
MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, that's exactly right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. REYNOLDS: Let me just spend a minute about sending
area six, because this is a pretty significant approval that you granted
this morning, and it's very integral to Ave Maria because it generates a
substantial portion of the credits that we are now applying for for Ave
Maria.
I think the first thing to understand is it's almost 10,000 acres, but
it shares this II-mile boundary with the Panther Wildlife Refuge all
along the southern perimeter here. It's an area that was targeted for
CREW acquisition. CREW didn't have the financial resources to
acquire everything that they have targeted for acquisition, so through
your rural land stewardship program, we're now putting an important
piece of that puzzle in place without public funding and without
acquisition.
Stewardship areas not only protect natural resources, but they
Page 122
June 14, 2005
protect agricultural, and the reason they do that is because all uses
other than agricultural and conservation are stripped away from that
property. So you can see if you look at the aerial photo that there are
some areas that have active agriculture in the form of row crops.
Those will stay in agriculture as part of this stewardship area.
Even the naturally vegetated areas retain a passive agricultural
use for cattle grazing, for example, and that way there's an economic
value that still accrues to the property owner so that they can manage
these properties long-term for the benefit of the public and for their
own interest.
You know, I've struggled a little bit in trying to get -- excuse me
-- people to understand the scale of what we're talking about here. So
I went through a little exercise with our folks to put these six
stewardship areas overlaid on a map of Naples.
And if you can just look at this exhibit, and if you see this area
right here that I'm tracing with my mouse, that stewardship's in area
six turned on its side and overlaid, and you can see the northern
boundary would be approximately where Pine Ridge Road is.
The southern boundary would be in the bay. It would go east all
the way to East Naples. That's just the last sending area. You can see
the other sending areas that have been previously approved.
So that gives you an idea of scale for what 17,000 acres of
conservation represents if you just try to, you know, put it in a
framework that we all can appreciate and understand.
The other thing that is good to know is that these six sending
areas represent about one-fifth of where we're trying to get to over 20
years with the stewardship plan. We have about 90,000 acres that
we're trying to protect, so we are making a significant first step
through Ave Maria in getting these sending areas put into the actual
designation. And getting one-fifth of the way there in the first couple
years, I think, is certainly well beyond what I expected and I think
most people that had worked on this plan had expected.
Page 123
June 14, 2005
This morning the term smart growth was used and applied to Ave
Maria, and, you know, there's various ways to describe it. But if you
boil it down to what it's all about, it's about communities that are
compact, that are mixed use, pedestrian friendly . You have mixed
uses that are integrated rather than segregated, you have infrastructure
that is planned for in advance and built in advance. And I mean,
they're common sense kinds of things, but we had lost some of those
principles, I think, in the past decades, and now we're returning to
those as being important components of a town plan.
When we look at the receiving area for Ave Maria, we have
integrated all those principles into the plan for the town. We have a
little over 5,000 acres. Approximately 1,000 acres of that is the
university, and the balance is the town Ave Maria.
In your land development code and in your comprehensive plan,
there are a whole set of criteria that you use to determine whether or
not you can approve a designation like the one that we're asking for.
Long story short, we have, through all these documents that we've
provided to the county and working with your staff, met every single
criteria that are required in order to receive these designations.
It's also important to understand that the zoning is already in
place on this property. When you adopted the land development code,
you put a zoning overlay, that once you have this designation, the
zoning actually was taken care of, and now it's just an overlay
designation that occurs on the property.
These are the -- these are the points and the findings that need to
be made in order to approve a receiving area designation. It's a
consistency with the policies, whether or not we meet certain
suitability criteria, compliance with the land development code, and
whether we have sufficient credits.
Do note though that the reliability of people to use this system is
really what generates the value of the credits. Put another way, if
somebody came with a receiving area designation and the credits and
Page 124
June 14, 2005
met all the criteria and were subject to a discretionary approval like is
typically the case, sooner or later the credits would start to lose their
value because there's really no value being derived by the credits.
So it was important in putting together this program that there
was a level of predictability that could be achieved for people that
chose to use the program, whether it's for a sending area or for a
receIvIng area.
These are the answers to the questions basically, if you want to
boil it right down to what the criteria are. Sufficient suitable land, that
we have land uses on property that scores below a certain natural
resource index threshold, that we provide suitable amounts of open
space, in this case we've exceeded that, that we have buffers to areas
of natural resource value that are contiguous to the town, that we have
access to county collector arterial roadways.
The natural resource index is something we've gone through in
the past, and we're not going to go through today, but it's a scientific
scoring that gives each acre a certain value based on a composite of
natural resource values.
When you add all those up, there is a threshold that if you exceed
that, it means that that land is important to be protected. There is no
land within the 5,027 acres that we're talking about today for the
receiving area that reaches that score. Yes, there are areas that do
have some natural resource value, but they are so limited and so
degraded to the point where they don't reach the score of value. And
conversely what we're protecting with -- the sending areas have high
scores and, therefore, we're protecting those things that really are most
important to be protected.
I think it goes without saying, if you've looked through the
documentation and you see that the staff has concurred with the
findings after looking at all the information that we've presented.
The county commission dealt with an innovative piece of this
with the developer contribution agreement about a month ago. And
Page 125
June 14, 2005
again, just to recap, because this is important both for the stewardship
receiving area and for the DRI, that we do have a plan in place now
that has the developers of Ave Maria making some contributions to
the county that will enable the county to put some very important
improvements in place.
And the value of the things that are being contributed under that
agreement exceeds $20 million, and that's before we start talking
about the impact fees that are generated out of the Town of Ave
Maria.
So suffice it to say that we are not just going to be consuming
some future capacity, but we're providing the solution both monetary
and in terms of certain cooperative efforts with the county to make
sure that that infrastructure's in place and that everybody has that
comfort level going in.
A couple of you mentioned you saw the planning commission
tapes, and you know there was a lot of time spent on the fiscal impact
assessment model, and I think, in part, that's because that's a new
requirement in Collier County in the rural lands stewardship area.
This is a -- it's a complex issue. We have the state's leading
expert who actually put the models together as part of our team. We
have gone through this as many ways as people could think of going
through it, and every time that we have run the analysis with different
parameters, we have demonstrated that this proj ect exceeds its fiscal
neutrality test, but it's not just good enough to be able to model it and
say that it meets or exceeds the test. We will have to have a look at it
in five years to make sure that it's performing as designed.
And the reason that we wait for five years is because things in
this town have to reach a certain level of development in order to start
balancing the demands and for the population. So when we get to five
years, we think that we've got a stabilizing system where we have not
only the people, but the jobs and the shops and the -- all of the things
that are going to support that town, and that's the appropriate time to
Page 126
June 14, 2005
actually reevaluate and make sure that it's acting as performed.
But I will tell you that we have been very conservative in our
opinion on analysis because it would not make sense for us to launch
into the construction of a new town, make the kinds of commitments
that are being made with a risk factor out there that we may not be
able to meet that test in five years, so I will assure you that nobody has
been more concerned about this evaluation than the people who are
actually going to be building the town.
The last piece, there is in your documentation a credit agreement.
And, again, without getting into the details, there are certain
mathematical calculations that have to be applied to deal with those
uses that require credits and those that don't to arrive at a total number
of the credits that are applied. And all the documentation is in your
application. But essentially it boils down to those things that are
deemed to be public benefit uses, do not consume credits, and
everything else does.
And so when you go through that math, you'll see that we have to
consume for this town a little over 28,000 stewardship credits in order
to get this designation.
If I may, let me just talk a little bit about the DRI, because even
though the SRA is the application that was introduced, we have a
companion DRI that's being reviewed at the same time.
And I think it's -- to understand that the DRI deals with one just
one piece of this. I mean, the SRA is what I would call the
comprehensive look. The DRI deals with those issues that have the
potential to impact residents of more than one county.
So we go through a process that I know you're familiar with. But
I think it's important to know that this process with the DRI also
started almost a year and a half ago.
We have every step of the way been found to meet all of the DRI
criteria. The Regional Planning Council did recommend approval to
this county commission, and we now have a development order that
Page 127
June 14, 2005
will be part of the approval that sets forth the conditions of approval
that address the regional issues.
And they will look, after the DO is approved, presuming it's
approved today, they will look again to make sure that that DO is
consistent with the recommendations that they made to the county.
Weare under construction at Ave Maria. The preliminary
development agreement and approval for the SRA that you acted upon
last year set the stage for us to get all of our permits to start this
project that we started actually last month. So we do have all the
permits in hand, and if you go out there today, you'll see that things
are happening out at the site of Ave Maria.
But that approval only gave us the right to develop within the
footprint of that PDA, so we can't go any further than what we're --
what you previously approved unless you act upon these petitions
today.
And Anita is now going to talk very briefly about the major
context zones in the town and some of the other issues that have been
addressed in the SRA plan, and then we'll be available to ask -- to
respond to questions that you have. Thank you.
MS. JENKINS: Good afternoon. Anita Jenkins, planning
manager for WilsonMiller. We're going to go through a brief
overview of the town plan for Ave Maria, and the town plan is the
document that sets forth the master plan, the permitted uses, and the
development standards for the town.
Specifically to the development standards, these are the setbacks,
the building heights, the landscaping, all of these standards were
adopted by the board in the land development code when you adopt
the rural lands area. And Ave Maria has designed the plan under the
direction of those designed standards to be a compact town and very
walkable.
All the standards are designed in detail and included in the town
plan that you have before you today. The town plan consists of
Page 128
June 14, 2005
several different districts, the purple area here being the university, the
town core is right in the center of the town, there are several town
centers, and then various neighborhoods throughout the town.
First and foremost, the university, the impetus of Ave Maria.
The university is designed to accommodate over 6,000 students and
also provide for a K through 12 school for those younger students.
Now, to support the students, the faculty, and the staff of Ave
Maria, there will be a town core and several town centers to provide
the goods and services that will be needed for the town and for the
residents that live in the town. There will be a mix of uses in the town
core.
The town centers will be slightly different in each location, but
they are located around the town to provide for that walkability and
those centralizations of those uses.
The neighborhoods will provide for a variety of residential
housing and also lifestyles. You'll also find in these neighborhoods
pocket parks, the public school will also be located in the
neighborhood, and there will also be some neighborhood goods and
services located within the neighborhoods that are suitable for those
locations.
The neighborhoods will also include workforce housing. The
workforce housing is integrated throughout each of the
neighborhoods, and there is an on-site commitment for very low
income units of200, also 700 low-income units, and 1,000
moderate-income units. There is also a commitment for off site for 28
acres that is dedicated to Habitat for Humanity.
The public schools that will be designated in Ave Maria include
both an elementary school and a middle school, and the applicant is --
remains to be in the process now with the school district to locate off
site a high school that is more centrally located to Immokalee Road.
Ave Maria includes a variety of both active community parks and
passive neighborhood pocket parks, and it's all connected through a
Page 129
June 14, 2005
trail system that you see here. All of the yellow lines are sidewalks on
both sides of each road that are connected to a greater trail system that
is shown here in the orange and green and purple lines. So the
independent trail system and the sidewalks of this town and the quality
of this system is going to encourage a great deal of walking and
bicycling in Ave Maria.
I've been a planner in Florida for 15 years now, and I'm very
proud to be associated with this project, and in Collier County, this
being a new future for Collier County. A demonstrating, sustainable
community design in Collier County will create something that is very
special and very unique to Florida right now. And as Al had
previously mentioned, we are moving forward to a mix of uses that
creates that town, that community, and that walkability that we have
not been focusing on for the past decade.
In addition to the sustainable development patterns, Ave Maria
has demonstrated the protection of natural resources and the protection
of agriculture. So meeting those three cornerstones of stewardship has
been demonstrated through Ave Maria, and we appreciate the
opportunity to present this to you today, and we'll be happy to answer
any questions that you might have after the staffs.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does the staff have a presentation, Jim?
MR. MUDD: I think Mr. Bellows is moving to the podium.
MR. BELLOWS: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hi, Ray.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The petitioner
has done an excellent job describing the project. The staff report and
the executive summary's gone into great detail explaining the nature of
the project, so therefore, I just want to just add a few comments about
the Environmental Advisory Council.
They heard this petition on May 4th, and they unanimously
recommended approval by a vote of 6-0. Also the Collier County
Page 130
June 14, 2005
Planning Commission reviewed this on June 2nd, and they also
recommended approval by a vote of 8-1.
The county staff has recommended approval because the proj ect
has been found consistent with the comprehensive plan and with all
the other elements of the growth management plan, and I'd be happy
to answer any questions that you might have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioners, do you have any
questions? Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The analysis, whether it's
compatible with the growth management plan, you did that analysis?
MR. BELLOWS: The comprehensive planning department did
the analysis in regards to the elements on the consistency with the
rural lands overlay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Then may staff answer--
I'm going by the old Item on our agenda instead of the one that was
handed to me yesterday. I just -- not yesterday. Was it yesterday?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, because I mean, I already
went through this, and I'm not going through another document.
So you get to correct me if it's wrong whether it's in the new
document, but policy 4.15, page 9 of the old agenda, it has to do with
-- well, just an excerpt.
The appropriate mixed use of retail, offices, recreational, civic,
government, and institutional will use -- uses will be available to serve
the daily needs of the community and the wide needs of the residents
in the RLSA.
What government uses are going to be in the Town of Ave
Maria?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, it's open to negotiation what county uses
can go in there, but we were figuring emergency services, fire, sheriff.
There could be county offices there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. My understanding,
Page 131
June 14, 2005
talking to the CEOs, is you already made a deal with the sheriff on
space and a fire station, and I think that's what it says in the
application, and an EMS station.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, and they're also providing sites for
schools, two school sites, within Ave Maria, and then outside the
boundaries of the town, a school site is being worked out with specific
acreage allocated for the schools.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Would it be appropriate
to have other government offices in the Town of Ave Maria for the
needs of the residents, or is this something that came up during the
application process?
MR. BELLOWS: I don't see a reason why the staffwould
oppose that. I would defer to the petitioner if they would have
concerns about making additional arrangements for additional county
floor space.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did the conversation ever come
up with the staff members during application and the review of staff of
the needs for other government services within the town?
MR. BELLOWS: I was not notified of any additional needs.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. It says on policy 4.19 a
total of 1,027 acres set aside for public benefit use. What is
considered public benefit use?
MR. BELLOWS: That can incorporate a wide variety of things.
I believe parks and recs uses, and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I understand that they're
going to have some recreational uses for the community. Is that
considered the public, or -- am I a part of the public? Can I go out
there and use it?
MR. BELLOWS: If I understand the question, you're saying, is
this a closed community not open to the public?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, they have some -- they're
going to have some recreational amenities in the town. They're not
Page 132
June 14, 2005
asking for parks and rec. to provide any of those -- I'm thinking -- I
think I heard some water features, that they're going to have a water
park or something like that. Is that for the residents or is that for the
residents of Collier County, residents of Ave Maria, residents of --
MR. BELLOWS: My understanding is that it's a facility that's
for the residents of Ave Maria, but it is a public facility so it would be
open to all.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, so I can go there and use it?
MR. BELLOWS: That's my understanding.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, we wouldn't go that far.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I've been known to go to
Fort Myers before.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And they let you in.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, yeah. They haven't
caught me anyways.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you get an answer on that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think Mr. Varnadoe could
probably answer that, just so I have an understanding whether I can go
out there or not.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: For your public purpose, did you get
an answer to that, I mean, public government?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I think we're going to
hammer that out, the location. Okay.
Is it -- is it sufficient when the growth management plan states
that the schools will have shared uses, and one of the schools is going
to be located outside the community?
MR. VARNADOE: That was at the request of the school
district, Mr. Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. VARNADOE: They wanted it more centrally located.
There's a high school called Palmetto Ridge, which is off Oil Well
Road, then you've got the high school in Immokalee, and they wanted
Page 133
June 14, 2005
to get one that was about equidistant from those two facilities.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The questions that I was
asking Mr. Bellows about, the public --
MR. VARNADOE: Public benefit uses are described in the
policies, public schools, public or post private, secondary institutions,
community parks exceeding the minimum requirements of the RLSA
overlay, municipal golf courses, government facilities excluding
essential services.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. VARNADOE: That's -- it's defined, open space in excess of
35 percent doesn't require credits, although it's not identified as a
public benefit use. That's how that credit calculation you heard Al go
into is described.
I know that you had questions that we're ready to respond to on
about three issues, if you'd like me to get into those at this time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
MR. VARNADOE: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, not yet.
MR. VARNADOE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have some other questions.
MR. VARNADOE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Am I considered the public to
use those, or is it --
MR. VARNADOE: I think you've got a difference between
public benefit uses and the recreational facilities that will be applied at
Ave Maria. Typically the parks that we're going to be -- the active
parks that we're going to be having and the recreational facilities will
be aimed at and are designed for the capacity of the Town of Ave
Maria and not for Collier County as a whole, but --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. VARNADOE: -- that's different than the public benefit uses
as designated in the growth management plan.
Page 134
June 14, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay, okay, I understand. I
mean, it's something like -- no different than a community that has a
golf course. It's an amenity for the residents -- for those residents?
MR. VARNADOE: Or a clubhouse or tennis courts or anything
of that nature.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- in the DRI it reports -- it
reports about hospital beds, and it has two designations, and I'll have
to get to it. Oh, I'm sorry. A project acute care beds, 76 beds. Is that
like emergency room beds, proj ect?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And then project
long-term beds, 187; that's just like hospital beds?
MR. VARNADOE: There's not going to be a hospital per se, but
we are -- we do have -- there will be clinics and medical facilities that
will grow with the town as it -- as it increases in size.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So -- but no hospital beds?
MR. VARNADOE: Well, there be -- these clinics, some of these
will have overnight facilities, but not a, quote, hospital in the sense
that I think of it, like Naples Community Hospital or Cleveland Clinic.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The -- I just have a little
bit of concern with that. I know that we do a lot of transports from
Marco Island to Naples Community Hospital, and they have a clinic
out there. If I'm not mistaken, we have to transport by helicopter
because of the distance.
And if -- I would think with a population of, projected, of 22-,
25,000, there might be that need for hospital facilities, and if not, then
maybe we should consider buying another helicopter.
MR. VARNADOE: We have had discussions with Naples
Community Hospital, and they have agreed and committed to provide
primary care facilities in terms of a clinic in the town from day one
and to grow that facility to provide primary care and needs for the
university and town through build-out.
Page 135
June 14, 2005
I do know there have been conversations with that group and
others as to the need for an additional hospital in North Collier
County. But, again, nobody has identified that Ave Maria may be the
appropriate place for that, and that's where we are on that issue, Mr.
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If I could just interject a comment about
that specific issue. The construction of hospitals is largely determined
by the state with a certificate of need, and it would be almost
impossible for you to do that at any foreseeable point in the future on
a population of 23,000, but acute care facilities and clinics that you
envision are probably the best way to deal with emergencies under
those circumstances.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's very true, and I
appreciate it. I just didn't know what -- I know that we're going to
take an active role on providing services to those residents out there,
so I'm just trying to, you know, prepare myself and others of what that
active role is going to be. That's all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Finished?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: One of the things that I look at the
out -- the whole outlay of the town, I have some concerns in regards to
the ability to shelter residents that are along the coastal area. And, of
course, three of us -- three of us commissioners that sit on board here,
we represent the coastal area.
And has there been anything in regards to addressing those
issues? Because this town is going to be somewhat inland, hopefully
away from any tidal surges.
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. We've been coordinating closely
with Dan Summers, your emergency management director, in that
regard. We've had numerous discussions about how to do it and, in
Page 136
June 14, 2005
fact, had provided him with the building plans for the first 12
buildings in Ave Maria.
He identified two spaces in the science, math, and technology
building that he thought would be appropriate for shelters. At his
request, we have provided or are providing -- it isn't built yet -- a large
emergency generator, and those areas will be on, as I understand it, on
a separate electrical panel that will be -- can be connected to this
emergency generator so that it would be lights and cooling for those
areas.
In addition, he was somewhat concerned about food service after
the event, so we have, in the student activity building, the cafeteria,
will have an emergency generator that will power the food facilities to
keep the food fresh and there will be propane stoves and ovens to
provide basic food services after the event.
We've also talked to Mr. Summers about, in the future, providing
more space out there. But as you and I have discussed, Mr. Halas,
some of that burden needs to fall on the county in terms of some of
those facilities. It shouldn't be falling on Ave Maria or the university
when we are not required to evacuate our people. We are trying to
provide a service to the coastal area.
So I would encourage this commission -- you've got a facility in
terms of the university in particular that is willing to work with you
and help provide shelter, but I think that the county needs to step up to
the plate with regards to some funds to make that occur.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you enlighten me in regards
to, you're going to have adequate shelters for the residents of Ave
Maria. What is your best guess -- or maybe I'll have to ask our
emergency management director on this. What is your best guess with
the additional hardening of the buildings, would -- how much of an
influx could you take from the coastal area?
MR. VARNADOE: I really can't answer that, but you need to
understand we are in an area where people will probably not be
Page 137
June 14, 2005
evacuating. They'll be hunkering down because of their -- you know,
it's run from water and hide from wind, so in that location there won't
be water damage. They'll be just hiding from the wind.
My understanding in the -- and I missed one point that I should
have made very clear. There are two public schools that are going to
be built there. Both of those will be built as hurricane shelters.
And Dan, I don't want to steal his thunder, but he's telling me
probably 225 to 250 people per school. So there's where we are today,
Commissioner Halas. But this -- you know, we're not going to have
11,000 units there tomorrow. We don't have 6,000 students there
tomorrow. It's an iterative process, and I think we just need -- I know
that Dan could use some funding to help make some of this happen.
So I would encourage you to work with the Town of Ave Maria
and Ave Maria University in the future to provide more space as we
go -- as we go forward.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My last follow-up question here is,
in regards to you taking on the responsibilities of hardening these
buildings, has the county stepped up to the plate? Because I think this
should be a cost share involved in this where the county would help
supply generators or temporary generators and maybe assist in making
sure that there's adequate electrical panels, external electrical
connections for generators to be hooked up in case of an emergency.
Has there been any discussion in that realm?
MR. VARNADOE: We've had a very good working relationship
with Dan Summers, your emergency management director. But in the
initial go of what we're doing, no, that has been done by -- being done
by the university at a cost of between 4- and $500,000.
We're also agreeing -- we agree with Mr. Summers to house two
of his emergency trailers in our joint EMS, fire, sheriff building. But I
want to say that we've had a great relationship with Mr. Summers.
And I think that ifhe had funds, he'd be right at the forefront to help
us in future buildings, and I kind of look to this commission to see
Page 138
June 14, 2005
how we can make that happen.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Dan, how can we make that
happen?
MR. SUMMERS: Never ask an emergency manager how. Dan
Summers, director of emergency management.
Commissioner, I want to say the dialogue has been excellent.
We've -- this is sort of a phased approach. In these initial buildings,
science and student union areas, that type of thing, where they're
going to provide backup power in the early phases, that provides me
sort of the first phase, if you will, for sheltering operations.
The second phase that we want to look at this, as we get more
into construction with them, is I want to encourage Ave Maria to --
and the cost to -- cost is relevant to all of us, okay? But I want to
encourage them to meet with me and let me zone certain parts of their
new construction with what we call a manual generator transfer
switch, and that, at the time of new construction, is not too painful at
all.
What is a challenge for both of us is the capital cost associated
with very large generators for very large plants. My recommendation
-- and we can review this with his architectural and design staff -- is
that as we have -- as we approach design build of the new building,
put the manual generator transfer switch in there, and let's look at that
partnership relationship for that switch.
But what I want from you, rather than spending the capital cost
associated with a generator that could potentially sit idle for a year, I
would rather have the funding from you to put rental equipment under
retainer, and then that way I can bring the large units in, and we can
plug and play those particular areas of the campus. FEMA reimburses
me for rental. We're not out capital dollars. Weare only out the
retainer fee to guarantee delivery of that equipment, and I think that
might be most cost beneficial for both parties.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good.
Page 139
June 14, 2005
MR. SUMMERS: But I think once we get closer to their design
and the part -- and the transfer switches are very palatable, and then
the rental equipment from you in the future, it gives me a lot of
flexibility and saves a lot of capital. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Two questions. First one's
short and simple. If you do build an ACLF, will it have a skilled care
unit in it?
MR. VARNADOE: Commissioner Fiala, I can't answer at this
point in time. That's in the future, and I just don't know the answer to
that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Just curious, but it's not
imperative that I have an answer.
MR. VARNADOE: If I knew the answer, I'd tell you. A lot of
this stuff is 10 years or more down the road, and I don't know the
answer to that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And Commissioner Henning
brought up the subject of satellite offices, and one thing we've found
very effective from our government center is that these satellite offices
that house driver's license and clerk of courts and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Driver's license.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, tax collector, have been very,
very well used and keeps -- you know, keeps people kind of close to
where they live, which makes it easier on the road system. Will you be
having a satellite office there in Ave Maria?
MR. VARNADOE: We'd like to encourage the county to lease
space in our downtown area. We're very concerned in the early years
about getting enough synergism and square footage in there to make
this a real downtown area. But Commissioner Henning had asked if
we would make a longer-term commitment for additional space that
the county might own for that type of use.
Page 140
June 14, 2005
And if you'll look -- I've given -- passed out to you three Items
that Commissioner Henning wanted me to address, and I'm going to
do that now, and the last one was this government building.
We've got a minimum of three acres that we are going to be
dedicating for joint use by the EMS, fire station, and sheriffs
substation, and we would propose to have an additional one acre
available for this kind of use adjacent to that site.
You just passed a government building impact fee recently, and
we'd like to get impact fee credits for it, so you'll see on there we're
asking that you identify within five years whether you're going to use
it or not. And if you are, we would dedicate it at that time and then
have the ability to use those impact fee credits. What I don't want to
do is not have you tell me for 10 years and I don't have enough
building left to justify -- or to utilize my impact fee credits. So that's
why that's written in there.
If five years is acceptable, that would be great. If we need to talk
about that, I'm happy to do that. And while I've got this going, let me
go ahead -- and Tom wanted written commitment on the health care. I
think I've covered that, but that also would be added to the SRA
document, to have that commitment in the SRA document.
The last Item that Commissioner Henning asked me to address
was making sure that we had at least a minimum square footage for
utilization for business park uses, whether it's lawn mower repair,
things of that nature, and so we've got a commitment for 50,000
square feet, with probably four or five acres.
There's -- actually Town Center II has 160 acres. I could see a
lot more of that being out there, but I think it kind of depends upon the
market and where the demand is for those kind of uses in that location.
So these are commitments we would make and put on the record,
and I'll give one to the court reporter.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Mr. Varnadoe,
Page 141
June 14, 2005
Commissioner Henning was right about being concerned about
essential services and who pays and how it comes together. And I
know Ave Maria's been striving to reach a factor where they won't be
a burden on the county itself. It would be self-supporting.
Two things I haven't heard enough detail on yet that I'd like to
hear some more on, one is the fire protection, that's going to come
from Immokalee, is it?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that -- one of the units will
be going on -- or the buildings will be going on that three acres?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's under a plan or
construction --
MR. VARNADOE: It's a joint planning effort that we've gotten.
They wanted to model it after one of the fire stations in Golden Gate.
We've been working with both the sheriffs department and the EMS
as to the design, and we were basically acceding to their wishes as to
interior space. I mean, the exterior we might want to have some input
in. But yes, we have a design architect working with them at the
present time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, when this fire
station's built, is it going to be built in such a way that it won't become
a financial impact on the fire district in Immokalee, the residents that
live in Immokalee?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. The -- and I don't have the number
right in front of me, but the impact fees that we are generating for that
are enough to more than offset the demand. We're going to be
providing a temporary site for them during construction for all three,
again, to house their equipment and probably a trailer for their
utilization during construction, and then we see this station coming on,
you know, '08, '09, something in that -- or '10, in that time frame.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And you've already made
Page 142
June 14, 2005
arrangements with EMS?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. And you have their letters that we
put in the record in the planning commission, letters of commitment
for service by the sheriff, EMS, and the fire station, all being satisfied
with our approach in terms of providing the land and helping with the
facility for them.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then the only other thing that's
missing from this would be the water and the sewer. That, of course,
won't be coming from Immokalee. It's too far, isn't it, or--
MR. VARNADOE: It is. The utility was formed, and there will
be a private -- Ave Maria Utility will be providing potable water and
irrigation water in the future through reuse and the -- taking care of the
-- the other uses.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And it's being built to meet that
MR. VARNADOE: Wastewater.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know, it's embarrassing to talk
about.
MR. VARNADOE: I couldn't grab it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But the size of the plant that's
being built will be adequate to meet the town population, or is it going
to be one of these things where it's going to be a mad rush in 15 years
to try to build a plant?
MR. VARNADOE: We've worked, of course -- when it's the
same owner, nobody gets hurt worse than he who is trying to build
houses if you don't have sufficient capacity. Are we going to build it
all up front? No, sir. It's going to have to be a phased approach to it,
and, of course, working carefully with our absorption schedule, and
that's how it's being approached.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner, 15 years, Ave
Maria's going to annex Immokalee in there.
Page 143
June 14, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, actually, I hate to tell you
this, but we already have plans in Immokalee with our master plan to
annex Ave Maria. We're not going to talk about that now.
MR. VARNADOE: Let's don't go there today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Since he's lost his train of thought, I'm
going to Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- has there been any
discussion with our staff and the fire district -- of course, you'd be in
the fire district, too, you could be the fire district -- on a joint facility?
I mean, it sounds like what you're explaining, it's two separate
buildings?
MR. VARNADOE: Oh, you mean for the other government
buildings as opposed to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no. EMS station and a fire
station together.
MR. VARNADOE: No. It's all going to be one facility. That's
how they're planning it. If I didn't make that clear, I'm apologize. It's
all going to be one facility.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay. I just want to make
sure that everybody's aware that the Board of Commissioners provides
space for constitutional officers, so the deal that you made with the
sheriff, I'm not sure if that's a binding deal.
What did he offer you on my benefit?
MR. VARNADOE: He offered us to provide protection for our
residents and -- from day one out there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good.
MR. VARNADOE: We have just -- what we tried to do is
accommodate all those uses, whether it be sheriff or the EMS or the
fire district, but they all have no problem with being in one joint
facility, and that's the way it's being designed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala asked you a
question about acute facilities, and your remark is, well --
Page 144
June 14, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Skilled.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Skilled care for the ACLF.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And you said, well, you
don't know what your needs are going to be out in -- 10 years from
now.
MR. VARNADOE: That was in regard to an ALF facility,
assisted living facility. And I don't know what the plan's going to be,
whether that's going to have acute care in that facility or not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And kind of like asking
us to commit within our capital improvement element of -- within our
five-year work plan, capital improvement element.
MR. VARNADOE: Well, I'm not asking you to be ready to
build it in five years. All I want you to tell me is that you're going to
want it out there. And once you make that commitment, we'll dedicate
the site to you. If five years isn't enough, maybe we should say five
years or before 75 percent build-out of the project. But we want to
make sure that we have enough left that we can use the impact fee
credits. That's all I'm trying to get at.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, and utilize the land for
maybe a different use.
MR. VARNADOE: If you're not going to use it, yes. I mean, we
don't need to see it sitting fallow out there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- you have the ability to
build guesthouses in this community, correct?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How many?
MR. VARNADOE: Don't know. We can't exceed the maximum
number of units that we're allowed, but they are very limited in size.
Six hundred square feet? Six hundred fifty to nine hundred square
feet.
So with most of the lots being smaller because of the walkability,
Page 145
June 14, 2005
I don't think you're going to see a proliferation of these accessory
units.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it could be as much as
22,000? How many --
MR. VARNADOE: Eleven thousand dwelling units.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay.
MR. VARNADOE: And not all of those are going to be
single- family . You certainly can't build an accessory unit to a
condominium or a rental unit, so, no, sir. You know --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if you can build an EMS
station accessory use to a school, I wouldn't be surprised. But this is --
I'm sorry. This is another topic.
MR. VARNADOE: You lost me on that one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right. You don't want to
know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That has to do with the --
MR. MUDD: That went right here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. That has to do with the EOC,
George.
Do you want to build an EOC out there for us?
MR. VARNADOE: Dan's already asked me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was that counted, the
guesthouses, counted in trip generation?
MR. VARNADOE: It was hard to know how many there were
going to be, so, no, sir, not exactly. But that will be done at the end of
five years when we do the fiscal neutrality, you will have -- know
what our impacts are. It will be done every two years with regards to
transportation in our biannual report as far as the DRI is concerned.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So do we know how many -- I
mean, a guesthouse could be -- could that be part of an attached
dwelling unit, like townhouse? Can it be -- can you have a guesthouse
to townhouse or --
Page 146
June 14, 2005
MR. VARNADOE: No, sir, just in the single-family.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just in single-family?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So okay, it would be in the --
there's only two areas that that might be allowed?
MR. VARNADOE: Probably three.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Three?
MR. VARNADOE: But the -- I know in one community it's
been planned that is not an allowed use. Typically where you're going
to see those would probably be in the single-family lots that are closer
in to the town center. You might see some. There are some larger lots
there where you might see a few guesthouses.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about the planning
commission's stipulations? When do you want to get to that?
MR. VARNADOE: Well, they've all been incorporated either in
the development order or into the development document, Mr.
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So we're okay?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir, and your staff has reviewed those,
and I think they're appropriate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And there's one deviation that --
from the -- what we consider land development code?
MR. VARNADOE: There are a few deviations from the RLSA
land development regulations that would typically guide what's in a
town, and those are listed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
N ow we have some -- some public speakers on this Item. Two
people came in and registered after we swore in all of the others.
Ms. Filson, could you read the names of those two people, and --
MS. FILSON: Tammie Nemecek and Barbara Cacchione.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Tammie and Barbara, would you
Page 147
June 14, 2005
please stand up. We're going to swear at you.
MS. NEMECEK: Barbara had to leave.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, she had to leave. Okay. We'll swear
you in then.
(The speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's -- we have how many
speakers?
MS. FILSON: We have 10.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Are any of the 10 speakers
speaking in opposition to Ave Maria? Raise your hand, please. One
person, okay, two people.
MS. FILSON: Three.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Very well. We'll have three minutes
each, and I'd ask that you refrain from being repetitive. If something
has already been said, just say that you agree with it, and we can move
on.
First speaker, please.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Brad Cornell. And following Brad will be
Laurie Macdonald. And if the second person would like to come up to
the other podium.
MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Brad
Cornell. I'm here on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society. Our
mission is to protect natural resources, wetlands, listed species and
their habitats, and we have been highly involved with the rural land
stewardship area policies, as you know, as you have been yourselves,
and we stand here before you to support the Ave Maria town and
university as an actual implementation of these RLSA policies.
The policies, as you know, are an experiment in protecting
natural resources, wetlands, listed species, and agriculture, where the
public cannot purchase these lands. And Lord knows we tried for a
long time before that to work out protections for these areas.
Collier County Audubon Society's very optimistic that these
Page 148
June 14, 2005
policies will achieve their vital public purpose through a combination
of incentives and regulations, as you've already seen presentations on.
As some confirmation of our optimism, we note the 17,000 acres
of wetlands, panther, wood stork, and other listed species habitat being
permanently protected as stewardship sending areas in order to entitle
5,000 acres of the Ave Maria town and university.
This is no small event as far as resource protection goes. That is
an amazing ratio of, if you want to call it mitigation, but the
entitlement for the town and university are something that we support.
We recommend approval of the DRI and SRA. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Brad,
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Laurie Macdonald. She will
be followed by Sonya Tuten.
MS. MACDONALD: Good afternoon. Laurie Macdonald. I'm
the Florida director for Defenders of Wildlife. Defenders is a national
conservation organization with close to half a million members, and
we have an office here in Florida.
The -- I was around when the concept of the rural lands
stewardship area was kind of coalescing and found it to hold great
promise, and I'm glad to see that it's been adopted by your county.
We provided detailed comments a couple years ago when you were
doing that adoption.
We do, however, believe that the approval for this project is
premature because of the fact that it does not -- it does not address the
full impact from -- direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts are not
fully mitigated by their proposal.
This is largely based, unfortunately, on a recently-issued
biological opinion by the Fish and Wildlife Service, which has some
inaccuracies and inconsistencies. It's somewhat misleading with
regard to the impacts on the wide-ranging Florida panther, which is
such an incredible animal in this area and for which you occupy the
area which is so essential to its continued existence.
Page 149
June 14, 2005
We believe that with regard to transportation matters, that the
impacts, the amount of traffic that will be generated by Ave Maria are
not actually accounted for. Matters of wildlife crossings, although
conservation easements are given in the vicinity where they're needed,
there's no real provision for the installation of wildlife crossings which
are greatly needed.
We believe that there are not adequate provisions to ensure that
the full outward development and the impacts of the project will not
lead to further growth in areas which should not be occurring.
So for a number of reasons, these being a few, we believe that the
approvals should not be made until fuller mitigation is -- proposal is
completed, and the somewhat vague -- because build-out would not be
for some time yet -- somewhat vague proposals are given greater
depth of understanding for all of us.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Sonia Tuten. She'll be
followed by John -- and I think it's Swinglo. (sic).
MR. TUTEN: Hi, I'm Sonia Tuten, president of Immokalee
Chamber of Commerce. And first of all is I'd like to answer a couple
of Mr. Henning's questions about the government complex. We have
nice government complexes in Immokalee, and they're only five miles
south of there.
So first of all is, we only have part-time staff because it's not
fully utilized to what it could be used, so I encourage this -- the county
commissions (sic) to concentrate on fully staffing that facility down
there, because it's only five minutes for people to go get permits,
driver license.
Matter of fact, I know that the driver's license place in Naples is
so booked up that we have people that actually come to Immokalee
because we hardly have a wait to get your driver license, pay your
taxes, so I think you should really concentrate on utilizing those
Page 150
June 14, 2005
facilities. And Mr. Coletta has an office there as well.
Another thing about the hospital, we do have a hospital there as
well that is kind of in the works. I've talked to a few of the other
community leaders, that we have the Isabel Collier Reed Hospital. So,
again, five miles south of there you have a hospital, or not now, but
going back into works again.
Immokalee Chamber of Commerce, a couple years ago when we
heard about this, we have fully opened our arms. We welcome the
Ave Marie ( sic) University and town. We're also proud that this is
utilizing and providing to save the environment, also protecting us
with agriculture, since agriculture is a big part of this county, and look
forward to it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is John Swinglo. He'll be followed
by Ellen Peterson.
MR. SWINGLE: Good afternoon. My name is John Swingle. I
am the chapter chair for the Florida Chapter of the Sierra Club, and I
have copies of my remarks for the commissioners, if you'd like to pass
that out.
I'm here today to speak against the approval of this project, the
establishment of the Town of Ave Maria. The long-range implications
of this project are horrendous.
As an example of what I'm saying, we need only look one county
over to Lee County. Florida Gulf Coast University was built in the
middle of prime panther habitat. Just a few years later, and almost all
the available land around the university is developed, under
development, or permitted to be developed.
This has resulted in a loss of prime panther habitat, many times
greater than the original footprint of the university. The same thing
will happen here.
The more than 500 acres allotted to this proj ect are already being
used as agricultural land, but these agricultural lands are surrounded
Page 151
June 14, 2005
by pristine panther habitat. You allow this proj ect as it stands and you
will drive another nail into the coffin of the Florida panther.
Therefore, for the seven reasons outlined below, I urge you to
vote against it and show that you care for something other than profit
margIn.
And the seven reasons are fragmentation of the panther and black
bear habitat. I'm just going to read the titles to save time. I'm not --
you can see the details on the list.
Number two, it has also come to light that much of the
justification for new development and road widening rests on faulty
panther studies conducted by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Number three, while we applaud the efforts by fellow
environmental groups and Collier County staff to secure mitigation in
exchange for the lost wetlands and habitat for endangered species, as
far as we can tell, this plan, the rural land stewardship sending area,
does not add new habitat for the panther, so there will be a net loss of
habitat. To this extent, such mitigation is a sad hoax.
Number four, a new town will undoubtedly add to panther
mortality from road accidents. There will be an estimated 44,113
daily internal trips, 76,312 daily external trips by peak build-out in
2016. County roads plan for many roads to be widened in the area.
Number five, approximately 377 acres of wetlands will either be
filled for development or excavated for surface water management
lakes. This is contrary to federal and state goals to maintain wetlands
to protect endangered species and to preserve water quality.
Number six, many other endangered species have been found in
the 5,000 acres that will be used for the Ave Maria town. Weare
skeptical that there will be adequate protection for these endangered
plants and animals.
And number seven, finally, we believe that Ave Maria town will
only serve to fuel more sprawl in this area. The Barron Collier
Company and many others will undoubtedly use this road and
Page 152
June 14, 2005
infrastructure improvements provided for the new town to facilitate
additional development in Eastern Collier County.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Ellen Peterson. She'll be followed
by Steve Price.
MS. PETERSON: I'm from the Calusa Group of the Sierra Club.
We lived through our big Gulf Coast University, and I'm sure you can
all look to see what's happened to particularly our water, and
particularly the infill that's been allowed to go in, and that's going to
happen, because that essentially is the plan. This is going to be similar
to what Ben Hill Griffin did, and I think we can expect it.
So we would hope that the commission is very cautious in
allowing permits and allowing changes. We found that our
comprehensive plan gets changed pretty often. So if you would please
take care that you are aware of all the previous things mentioned, like
the panther, and particularly your water and transportation needs.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Steve Price. He'll be
followed by Fred Thomas.
MR. PRICE: Hi. Steve Price, chairman and CEO of Florida
Community Bank headquartered in Immokalee, also chairman of the
Immokalee Community Development Corporation.
I've been in Immokalee since 1963. I saw them take down the
hitching posts and four-lane Main Street, I've seen the boom in the
farming industry, I've seen the farming industry when it went broke in
1990, and I've seen Immokalee turn into much of a labor camp after
that boom we had in the '70s and '80s.
I've also witnessed this county commission investing a great deal
of effort and funds in trying to provide some impetus for economic
development in Immokalee, and I congratulate you for that.
This is a project that will complement the things that you've done
Page 153
June 14, 2005
with the airport, with other projects like the Main Street project and
things that we've had, and help to provide jobs to the people in
Immokalee.
It will also provide housing to professionals, school teachers,
management people that work in Immokalee and now drive an hour,
hour and a half, every day on Immokalee Road to get to work in
Immokalee and then have to drive back every afternoon. So I see it
decreasing traffic as opposed to increasing traffic.
I appreciate the responsible approach that the Audubon Society
has taken in trying to look at both sides of an issue and understanding
that there's going to be some growth. We have to have responsible
growth, and this is a project that meets that criteria. It's also a project
that the Immokalee community needs very badly. It's only, as Sonia
said, a few miles south of Immokalee. We do have government
facilities five, 10 minutes away, and those things are appropriate to
bring up.
But the real issue is jobs, and the real issue is the overflow that
we're going to get as an economic benefit to the people of Immokalee,
the lifestyle change that will be provided. Immokalee is a very
Catholic community, being heavily Hispanic. Having a Catholic
university and the social programs that will naturally come from that,
the educational opportunities for our young people of the farm
working families.
There are -- you know, I could spend the next 15 minutes telling
you of all the incidental benefits that the people in Immokalee will
derive from this proj ect.
In the years that I've been there, since 1963, this is the most
critical thing that's ever been done, and it will magnify the investment
that you have already made. It will leverage the monies that you have
put in the airport and the other things in Immokalee with private
dollars that are going to have a significant impact, and we would
appreciate your positive support of Ave Maria. Thank you.
Page 154
June 14, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Steve.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Fred Thomas. He'll be followed
by John DePrisco.
MR. THOMAS: Yeah, my name is Fred Thomas, for the record.
I served on the Rural Lands Advisory Committee and I now am
chairman of the Master Plan Envisioning Committee for Immokalee.
And you all heard me make other comments in the past, but I'm
here to promise you that as a result of our master plan, we will not put
a moat, a large wall, or charge a tariff between Ave Maria and
Immokalee.
So as you heard early, we have all the facilities that we need.
You already know that we're in the process of working out with
University of Florida -- I'm sorry -- sorry, Bill, Steve -- and we will be
getting better medical facilities there, and hopefully the next CON will
go on in the Immokalee area to serve that whole area where we
already have the infrastructure already built up for you.
As you've heard previously, you all have worked very hard to
help us become the industry engine for Collier County. The cylinders
(sic), if you will, of Collier County.
We can do that with the name recognition that Ave Maria will
generate that brings business to our airport, industry to our airport.
We will do that by enhancing the wildlife corridors with all of the
heavy donations that's required by the rural lands programs.
And we will make this a much better place for everybody,
because as you know and you've heard from studies in the past,
industrial tax revenue only demands 75 cents back. And anything you
can do surrounding Immokalee to make that happen works.
The connectivity between Immokalee and Ave Maria works best,
providing a work -- source of workers for their retail establishment
and service industry, providing housing for our professionals that don't
have to travel as far, developing two-way traffic in the morning and in
the evening down Oil Well Road will be a major boom to you folks on
Page 155
June 14, 2005
the coast as well as us in the east.
And when it comes to evacuation centers, I think we have served
adequately as the evacuation location for all of Collier County. They
don't have to stop at Ave Maria. The people can hunker down there,
and they'll continue to us. We've got a brand new facility that's the
first building in Southwest Florida built to the new hurricane standard.
What else do you need? Approve this, let the partnership
continue. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Your next speaker is John DePrisco.
He'll be followed by your final speaker, Tammie Nemecek.
MR. DePRISCO: Good afternoon. John DePrisco, president,
Waterways of Naples Homeowners' Association, a community of over
420 homes situated at Immokalee Road and Oil Well Road.
The residents are concerned about controlled growth, managed
growth, smart growth. We're concerned about traffic and the
widening of Oil Well Road, we're concerned about changing the
traffic pattern to eastbound for employment and for commercial and
retail use, and this proposal handles all of those. It moves up Oil Well
Road widening sooner rather than later, it reverses traffic flow from
westbound to eastbound, provides for employment, provides for retail
space and other concurrency Items such as the water and wastewater
and other things.
Obviously, growth is going to happen. Growth is going to occur.
There's going to be differences of opinion, especially regarding
environmental subjects. And it seems to me like this particular plan
handles it in a win-win scenario. So we're for it and we ask for your
vote as a yes. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker Mannie Temecek (sic). That
was close.
MS. NEMECEK: Tammie Nemecek, president of the Economic
Development Council. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and
Page 156
June 14, 2005
Commissioners.
I would like to, on behalf of the Economic Development Council
board of directors and members, offer our support for this project and
to give you a little bit of understanding of what impact the siting of
Ave Maria University in this town and Eastern Collier County has had
on our economic development efforts in Collier County, and
particularly to the Immokalee community, but it also impacts Collier
County as a whole, especially with regards to availability of sites and
opening up transportation infrastructure out to the Immokalee area.
In the years past, about 10 percent of our leads were interested in
the Immokalee community, but also -- and the Florida Trade Port, but
were also hindered by transportation and the viability of locating a
business out there.
Since the decision by Ave Maria to open up the eastern lands of
Collier County and the going forward of this project, we've had an
increase to about 30 percent of our leads that are interested in the
eastern Collier County areas, and we actually currently have about a
half a million square feet of space that is looking at Eastern Collier
County as a potential to site in the community, and these are economic
development proj ects.
These are things that through our public/private partnership with
the Board of County Commissioners, that we are working to recruit
and to expand here in Collier County. And having this facility there
that can not only provide additional housing, qualified labor through
the university and the students, but also provide improved
transportation routes with the widening of Oil Well Road as well as
the possibility of doing our bypass road with 29 and 82 around the
airport, it really does give a lot of credibility to the project.
Rising land costs along the coastal and dwindling land along the
coast is forcing a lot of our manufacturing businesses to look
elsewhere outside of Collier County, and this really gives them an
option within the community to grow high-wage jobs for our
Page 157
June 14, 2005
community.
With Immokalee as a population of 25,000 individuals and
unemployment rate of about 11 percent, the job opportunities that will
be available, not only in the construction industry, because there will
be a lot of jobs opening up in that, but, again, the additional impact of
some of these manufacturing and distribution and aviation-related
companies coming out to Immokalee can really impact our
employment opportunities for the citizens in Eastern Collier County.
So I would encourage you to support this proj ect and offer us
some opportunities for additional employment sites in Collier County
and not -- to reiterate what has been said again as far as the
transportation routes and moving some of this traffic eastward instead
of having to have anybody come in to Western Collier County, I think,
will be a great improvement to our infrastructure.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Tammie.
Commissioner Coletta, we're going to have you ask your
question, then we're going to break for our court reporter.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Actually, what I was looking for
was for the public portion of the meeting to be closed so I can make a
motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I will close the public comment portion
of the meeting right now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion for approval by Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
Uh-oh. Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about the stipulations?
Does that include planning commission stipulations?
Page 158
June 14, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, that does.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does that include the
stipulations --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Staff stipulations also.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And those that were handed out to us in
writing, Commissioner Henning, in response to your questions to Mr.
Varnadoe, these three things here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, includes all that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And just a question for the
petitioner. How do we determine -- I mean, the county manager agree
to -- this is all impact fee reimbursement?
MR. MUDD: He's talking about the three acres for, let's call it
emergency operation type things, and the one acre for the government
building. I didn't -- I didn't make those agreements, okay, and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Somebody made them for you.
MR. MUDD: Yeah, somebody helped me. And it would be -- it
would be nice if they were pro bono, but if impact fee credits are the
way to do it, that's fine.
But I would like to add a stipulation onto that five-year piece that
talks about 75 percent build-out and gives us some -- because you--
again, it was stated that there are some places in Immokalee -- there
are some places we're getting ready to do.
The Orangetree substation out at Orangetree, there is that 40
acres that sits where the utility plant is by the two high schools. There
are some opportunities, and as those things avail themselves -- and
that 40 acres won't avail itself until 2012. So we need to take all those
things into account as we look at these particular four acres and their
uses.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So your point is that we --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Extend the deadline?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We extend it to 75 percent build-out
rather than five years?
Page 159
June 14, 2005
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's part of my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then there's one other thing,
impact fee credible. What are we purchasing, at the agricultural it is
today, or is it a commercial, or how do we do that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What you're really asking is at what
value are we going to be able to purchase it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: At today's value or the value when it's 75
percent --
MR. VARNADOE: My understanding of your ordinance,
Commissioner Henning, is the day before the approval of the SRA or
zoning, if it's in the urban area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We understood that -- from Mr.
Reynolds that it already has a zoning designation for the uses.
MR. VARNADOE: It's not -- it's not designated as commercial,
Mr. Henning. And in this land, the land we're talking about is not
within the PDA, so it has not had an SRA approval on it at this time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So we're buying it as an
ag.?
MR. VARNADOE: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How much of a difference does it
make?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Big.
MR. MUDD: Big. It's huge, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Depends on if it's citrus or if it's
row crop or --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Woe.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know--
Page 160
June 14, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're getting taxed what the
value is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me? I would just like to
say that I have no problem with the community. I think it's going to
be an asset to Collier County, and in protection of environment.
I just wanted to make sure that we have all the pieces together. I
know we're not going to address the hospital needs in this community,
but at some point we need to address the hospital needs in Eastern
Collier County because of -- we know that it's going to be the size of
the urban area as it is today.
MR. VARNADOE: And I think Mr. Coyle was absolutely
correct, the -- you can bet, as you have now, you've got three hospital
organizations lining up trying to position themselves to have the next
hospital. I don't think that's going to be a problem.
The question's going to be, when is the state going to say it is
enough population base to say we're going to issue a certificate of
need for a new hospital facility.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And I believe the
statements from the community leaders of Immokalee, that they have
some services that they would like to provide that community, and
maybe the rational nexus for -- I mean, the de minimis impacts of not
having government uses in Ave Maria, and just have it full-time in
Immokalee might be the right thing. We won't know.
MR. VARNADOE: And that may be, and that's your choice
down the road, and that's why we weren't trying to push you, but we
did want to respond to your concern about that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We--
MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- have a motion for approval that
accepts all the stipulations in the staff and the CCPC
recommendations.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman?
Page 161
June 14, 2005
MR. VARNADOE: I think we probably need to have two
motions, one on the DRI and one on the SRA, if you wouldn't mind.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. That
was my first point, that -- ask for that as your preference. And second
to put on the record that as to the appraisal or actual value for the
purposes of determining those impact fee credits, it would be the day
prior to the zoning uses being created, which is the date before the
RLSA overlay district was approved. Not today's action, but prior in
time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, great.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So which one do you want
approved first?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The overlay --
MR. WHITE: It's your preference. I don't think there's a legal
distinction between the two that makes --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We already have a motion on the
floor.
MR. WHITE: -- makes sense to do the SRA --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've got a motion on the floor, and I
believe the motion is for 8B.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: C?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah,8B.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 8B.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: With all the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Which is requesting a designation of
stewardship receiving area.
MR. WHITE: And it is probably more logical to do that one
first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. So we have -- have that motion,
and what it does is incorporates all of the staff and planning
commission recommendations here, plus the stipulations produced by
Page 162
June 14, 2005
Mr. Varnadoe concerning health care, business park uses, and
government buildings, plus the stipulation that any public facility
buildings that we wish to have in Ave Maria, we will provide notice of
our intent not later than 75 percent build-out in Ave Maria, okay?
Is there anything else that needs to be added to that motion?
Commission Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You didn't mention about the
business park?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I named health care, business park, and
government buildings.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that was a commitment of
50,000 square feet?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the stipulations by the CCPC
and the staff?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: CCPC and the staff. It's all in there,
right?
And it's in the second, right, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
(Applause.)
Page 163
June 14, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We've got to do the other motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to disapprove this one now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA; We'll go on a break first, right?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to 8C.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can we get 8C approved pretty quickly,
or we going to have a break?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have questions though.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're having a break. Ten-minute break.
We'll be back at 3:24.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, County Manager.
We have a quorum, but we need more people.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We need four.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We need four now.
MR. WEIGEL: That's true.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can we appoint somebody?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We will if the other commissioners don't
show up pretty quickly.
We're waiting for one more commissioner to join us.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I have Mr. Ochs--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're here.
MS. FILSON: She's coming.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to put Commissioner Fiala
in the penalty box shortly.
MR. MUDD: You know, I thought I just had a vision, sir. I
thought I just saw Mr. Tom Jones with a tie on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no.
Page 164
June 14, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who'd he borrow that from?
MR. MUDD: I don't know who he got the tie from.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's not Tom Jones.
MR. JONES: I borrowed one from Mr. Gable last time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Item #8C
RESOLUTION 2005-235/DO 2005-01: DRI-04-AR-6293, NEW
TOWN DEVELOPMENT, LLP, REPRESENTED BY GEORGE L.
VARNADOE OF CHEFFY, P ASSIDOMO, WILSON & JOHNSON,
REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR
THE TOWN OF AVE MARIA DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL
IMPACT (DRI) TO ALLOW FOR A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOODS, A MIXED-USE TOWN CENTER, A
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT, MEDICAL OFFICE,
WETLAND PRESERVE AREAS AND P ARKLANDS, PUBLIC
AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND A UNIVERSITY. COMPANION
ITEM: SRA-04-AR-6896 - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Item -- you
finished 8B with a vote. You're at 8C, which is the DRI-04-AR-6293.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do we need a presentation or did
we get it all in that one?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. You're -- I think you got all the
presentation you're going to get.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what I thought.
MR. MUDD: I think you're looking for a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I had a couple questions
though. What? What?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You were late. You don't get to ask
questions.
Page 165
June 14, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was working. I was doing
company business.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County business.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Well, that's the company I
work for.
Okay. I wanted -- just a couple fast questions. George, maybe
you can help me. When you were figuring the trip generation and
capture rates, I was just wondering, were the students, the hotel guests,
employees, and, you know, the 10,000 employees, figured into that
trip generation and capture rate?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. Do you have those
figures that at some point in time I can see?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes. I can get you a copy of the entire
traffic analysis. You'll enjoy it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but I have to understand it. I
mean, I'm just kind of pinpointing those things. I had a couple fast
questions also. Everybody's really answered my questions before we
got here.
I have to say, I wanted to just comment on the affordable housing
and the rental housing and so forth. You guys have really worked
with us so well. That was my big strong contention, as you well
know, and I think that you've really worked hard. You've offered
more than I even asked for. I appreciate that. I think the rates that
you're offering -- and I want to say Blake Gable has been -- has been
-- and Kathy, yeah, Kathy Sproller -- I don't remember your last name,
I'm so sorry -- Sproll is good enough, right?
MR. VARNADOE: We refer to them as the dynamic duo.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah -- have really worked hard
with me to make me happy about that, too. The one little -- the one
little problem I had was in the moderate income, that it's only, you
Page 166
June 14, 2005
know, two years, and, you know, before it goes up to regular price,
market rate, and I was hoping that somehow we could work that out so
that -- so that more medium income people have a longer period of
time to be able to buy those before it goes into market rate, and I don't
know if that can be worked out at some other point, but the rest of it
has been so fair that I guess I won't push that any further.
MR. VARNADOE: And I will tell you that I am very proud of
the applicant with the affordable housing commitment. It goes far
beyond anything that's been done in this region, and as far as I know,
has been done around the state. I know your Cormac Giblin and
Susan Golden have called around the state asking how this compares
to anything else anybody's heard of, and we're head and shoulders
above what anybody else has committed to, so I appreciate your kind
comments.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well deserved. I don't give them
unless they're deserved, believe me.
And a couple other questions. In here it was talking about how
you would irrigate the golf courses, and although it says it was
"preformed" by deep and frequent waterings, I'm sure it was
performed, and I've mentioned that to Joe Schmitt, but we'll take care
of that later on.
But with the infrequent waterings, you know, infrequent could be
once a week or just once a day, you know, depending on the beholder.
But I wanted to know if you're going to be following the county's
ordinance on the water restrictions.
MR. VARNADOE: Yes. We've committed on the golf courses
to -- DEP is currently going through a revision of their best
management practices, and we've made a commitment to follow those
best management practices.
That infrequent watering is a stipulation that comes from the
South Florida Water Management District on all DRIs that have golf
courses, and that proposal is that you're better off watering heavily
Page 167
June 14, 2005
once in a while than light watering every day because it makes the
roots go down to get to the water as opposed to being surface roots.
So that's a standard stipulation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Is this -- are you going to be
submitting all of this stuff to somebody? Do you want -- do you want
to make sure spelling is correct and stuff?
Well, then, on page -- in the Southwest Florida Regional
Planning Council's third page here -- and I'm not going to bother to tell
you what it is.
MR. VARNADOE: Let me -- we have corrected those spelling
errors --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Have you?
MR. VARNADOE: -- as we picked them up in the development
area. I can't do anything about the Regional Planning Council's, what
they've done. But when we transformed -- or took those and put them
into the development order, we corrected the spelling and grammatical
errors the best we could.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That one -- if you could see the one
that I'm passing around, it's really a good one. But anyway, okay.
Let's see.
I've checked -- oh, yes. On the --
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, that means we were pumping, not
"pimping," right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's the one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That says we do need higher
education.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to clarify. I had
spoken with Norm, and I don't know if we ironed this out or not, and
we're at level of service now -- and this was on the original. I, like
Commissioner Henning, I had gone through everything in my first
edition, so when I got the second and third editions, I -- you know, I'd
Page 168
June 14, 2005
already done this stuff.
So this is on page 45 of 217 . We're talking about the level of
service adopted here. And it mentioned twice in here, three years of
that time, twice, on paragraph D, or number D, and I wanted to make
sure that that really reflected what the current level of service
standards are, which is two years.
MR. VARNADOE: And if you look at that -- and it's kind of
confusing. They went through paragraph A, B, C, D, E. And D and E
were alternatives, and E is the alternative that we all chose by going __
by entering into the development's contribution agreement. So that
paragraph D is not operative as far as this DRI development order is
concerned.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Norm's shaking his head, so
this is okay with us, right, Norm?
MR. FEDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: See, I had questions. Let's see. And
these were good ones, too.
MR. VARNADOE: I knew we should have had a motion before
the break.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But they weren't difficult. Just
getting this down. Let's see.
I had also spoken with Joe Schmitt. And on page 54 of217, they
were talking about if something -- if substantial changes in the
conditions -- a substantial deviation could result if certain conditions
weren't followed, and it mentioned that in paragraph C and D on page
54 of 21 7, but it didn't say then what teeth we have in enforcing that or
what -- you know, what happens if -- if these orders weren't met.
MR. VARNADOE: The substantial deviation process means that
we have to come back to you to address whatever changes in the
regional impacts have occurred that aren't dealt with in the
development order so you basically get a whole new analysis as to
whatever issues there are that caused that substantial deviation to have
Page 169
June 14, 2005
to be filed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that was explained to me, it's
just that it isn't explained here. Is that necessary? I mean, I just felt
that --
MR. VARNADOE: Excuse me. It's laid out by chapter 380.06,
the DR! law, and these are Regional Planning Council stipulations,
and there's a set process. They understand it, you know, to the 'nth
degree, and I think some of us that deal with it every day do, but I
noticed that when you asked that question, I know exactly what you're
talking about, because as -- you would have to do substantial
deviation, and then it stops.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. And then it leaves you
hanging, like a dangling participle.
Okay, fine. That's good. That's all I wanted to ask. I had a
number of questions. They've been answered for me. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You did very well. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When there's a motion made,
and part of the motion would be that, according to staff stipulations,
you recognize the stipulations of our housing -- affordable housing
director, and those agreements that were made?
MR. VARNADOE: The agreements that we made with your
affordable housing director are set forth in the development order, so
there weren't any additional stipulations to that, Mr. Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So that was taken care of
at the planning commission?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. We worked that out. The planning
commission asked us to work out affordable housing language from
whatever housing that was acceptable to the housing director. We
have done that. And those are now incorporated in the development
order. It starts on page three of the development order and goes for
Page 170
June 14, 2005
about two pages, and it reflects what Commissioner Fiala was just
referring to.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got one final question for you,
George. What's your anticipated build-out of this community, and
also what's your anticipated thoughts that -- if the popularity of this
university is such, do you see that it could double as far as student
body?
MR. VARNADOE: No, sir. If it goes beyond 6,000 students,
we're going to have to be back here in front of this board because we
don't, number one, have the facilities planned nor does the
development order allow us to go beyond 6,000 students.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. What's your best guess for
build-out, residential?
MR. VARNADOE: Two thousand sixteen.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what's your -- what do you
think the population will be at that time?
MR. VARNADOE: Twenty-four thousand two hundred, 24,400,
somewhere in that area.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But that doesn't count the students
or --
MR. VARNADOE: No, that's the housing population. No, it
does not count the students.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And how many employees are you
going to have again, 10,000 what?
MR. VARNADOE: That's an estimate.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ten thousand something, 10,380 or
MR. VARNADOE: Something in that range, but at this point
Page 171
June 14, 2005
obviously that's an estimate.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we're looking around 30,000
total?
MR. VARNADOE: Total.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: With the students.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. If you feel it's appropriate
to close the public meeting, I'll be more than happy to make a motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I feel it's appropriate -- do the
commissioners have any other questions?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm done.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'll close the public portion of the
meeting.
Then Commissioner Coletta, if you'll make a motion, we'll
proceed.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I would like to make a
motion for approval with all the staff stipulations and all the planning
commission's stipulations, and what are the other necessary
stipulations for this?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's it. The others are included in the
development order, I believe.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Regional Planning Council.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I said that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion for approval by
Commissioner Coletta as proposed, and with all of the stipulations of
all agencies as indicated in our executive summary, and a second by
Commissioner Halas.
MR. WHITE: If I may, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
MR. WHITE: Again, Assistant County Attorney Patrick White.
Page 172
June 14, 2005
Your last motion and approval asked to have all three of the handout
Items that Commissioner Henning had requested and Mr. Varnadoe
had provided, and they will be included as part of that SRA resolution
and its backup materials.
I think though that as to the DR! development order, the third of
those three's pertaining to the government buildings is one that truly
belongs, perhaps, more so in the DR! development order. And, in
fact, if you don't mind, I would like to add some clarifying text --
today's the first day I saw this -- that gives some better measure of the
exact point at which that 75 percent build-out trigger would exist so
that the staff will know exactly where they are getting close to and
have to give the developer some heads up as to that one-acre site.
And if you don't mind, I'd like to take the opportunity to put that
on the record with your indulgence.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
MR. WHITE: As to government building, I'm proposing to add
into the second sentence -- I'm sorry, it's the first sentence after the
phrase, applicant agrees to preserve an additional one-acre site within
the town for government buildings, adjacent to the joint facility.
And the next sentence, this site shall be reserved, striking the
words for a period of five years there and down below where each of
the times the words five years appear, and inserting language that
would be similar to the following: Until development of 75 percent of
the total number of residential dwelling units or 75 percent of the total
area of non-residential uses as measured at the time of building permit
approval.
And I think that ought to do it for the staff, and I think that if we
could get the applicant to agree to that on the record, we'd be well
positioned.
MR. VARNADOE: Okay. We're agreeable to that.
MR. WHITE: Thank you. Thank you, Board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Commissioner Henning?
Page 173
June 14, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. White.
MR. WHITE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you don't mean that we
have to wait till 75 percent build-out?
MR. WHITE: No. It's just that after 75 percent, it's understood
that we would have essentially foregone the opportunity to identify
that one-acre site and to have correspondingly provide the sought-after
impact fee credits.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that part of the motion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager?
MR. MUDD: I have one question.
Mr. Varnadoe, if you could get up to the mike real quick.
Remember the original piece that came forward? I believe that the
EMS, fire station, sheriff substation and the one acre for government
building is on that five-year time line, and I believe that it's all four
acres that we're talking about.
MR. VARNADOE: The joint facility for EMS, fire, and sheriff
is not on any time line.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
MR. VARNADOE: That's a commitment that we've made and
we'll be honoring before that. The only -- the only thing that I wanted
to put a time frame on was on the optional one-acre for government
buildings so that we'd have some idea if you were going to do it and
be able to take impact fee credits at the right time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Coletta, a second by Commissioner Halas.
Any further discussion by the board members?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. That's included in the
motion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And it's included in my second --
Page 174
June 14, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And included in the second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- the additional language that was
discussed.
MR. WHITE: Thank you.
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.
Now that takes us, I believe, County Manager, to 10, section --
no.
Item #8E
ORDINANCE 2005-29: PUDZ-2004-AR-6192 TOLL BROTHERS,
INC., REPRESENTED BY CHRISTOPHER HAGAN, OF
JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC. AND RICHARD
YOV ANOVICH, OF GOODLETTE, COLEMAN & JOHNSON,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM THE RURAL AGRICULTURE
(A) AND COMMUNITY FACILITY (CF) ZONING DISTRICTS
TO THE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN
AS THE COOK PROPERTY PUD. A TOTAL OF 160 SINGLE- OR
MULTI-FAMILY UNITS OR SOME COMBINATION OF BOTH
ARE PROPOSED ON 40.48 ACRES. THE PROPERTY IS
LOCATED AT 7700 AND 7792 DAVIS BOULEVARD,
APPROXIMATELY 1,700 FEET EAST OF SANTA BARBARA
Page 175
June 14, 2005
BOULEVARD IN SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE
26 EAST~ COLLIER COUNTY~ FLORIDA - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: No, Commissioner, that takes us to 8E.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, that's right, that's right.
MR. MUDD: And that used to be 17A. This Item requires that
all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members.
It's PUDZ-2004-AR-6192, Toll Brothers, Inc., represented by
Christopher Hagan of Johnson Engineering, Inc., and Rich
Y ovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman, and Johnson, requesting a rezone
from the rural agricultural A and community facilities CF zoning
district to the residential planned unit development (RPUD) zoning
district for a proj ect to be known as the Cook property PUD.
A total of 160 single- or multi-family units or some combination
of both are proposed on the 40.48 acres. The property is located at
7700 and 7792 Davis Boulevard, approximately 17,000 feet east of
Santa Barbara Boulevard in Section 9, Township 50 south, Range 26
east, Collier County, Florida, and this Item was moved to the regular
agenda by Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager, just so you know,
immediately after this Item, I'm going to allow public input because
there are, I think, six or eight people who are waiting for public input
and have been most of the afternoon, or most of the day. They have
agreed to have one person speak for the group, and we can -- we can
hear their remarks very quickly.
So after this is over, we'll go to -- go to public input, okay, public
speakers.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Y ovanovich, you're up at the podium.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The commissioner that pulled it is not --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is gone.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So I would --
Page 176
June 14, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we've got to do ex parte
and swearing.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Here he comes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Would you--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We already have a motion to
approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Anyone who intends to give testimony
on this petition, please rise and be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. And ex parte disclosure,
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have no disclosures on 17 -- or on
8E, which was 17 A.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can you come back to me,
please?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, I can.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I spoke with the petitioner and
his counsel.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I watched the Planning
Commission meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I had the opportunity to
talk to the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I also spoke with the
petitioner, or his representative concerning this Item.
So Commissioner Halas has a question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, the only thing that I have a
question on, probably for Norm Feder, Transportation Director, that's
Page 1 77
June 14, 2005
in regards to, we only have a single access point here on this piece of
property, and we have a density of about 160 units, I believe. Ifwe
could get some direction on this. I thought that most of the stuff that
we're trying to approve these days, we'd like to have additional access
points.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, yes. For the record, Norman
Feder, Transportation Administrator.
Typically we look at the point of requiring if we have about
4,000 trips. We won't have that much in this development. But I do
agree that wherever we can, we are trying to encourage more than
single access points. Should there be a problem at a single access
point, there's an alternate route.
In doesn't appear that site is well suited for an additional access
point and won't generate the 4,000 trips that would generate our
stronger encouragement of that requirement.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, you
pulled this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I did.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I pulled it for one reason.
Actually, this is about as good a package as you see come down
through. It was on the summary agenda, which means it had no
objections from either -- the planning staff, had no objections from the
planning commission.
The only thing that I see missing from here was the affordable
housing element that I think should be considered for just about
anything as far as housing goes today.
Excuse me, my voice is going out after Ave Maria.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank goodness.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Must be all that singing.
Mr. Y ovanovich, I stated my concerns to you before about this.
What is the view of your -- of the petitioner as far as affordable
Page 178
June 14, 2005
housing goes?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And Commissioner, Toll Brothers is
obviously committed to providing affordable housing. As we
discussed, the project really doesn't lend itself to affordable housing;
however, they are willing to make a donation to Barbara Cacchione's
organization out in Immokalee that is providing affordable housing in
the sum of $100,000 to be paid $1,000 per closing for the first 100
homes, and that hopefully is -- I think it's a substantial commitment to
affordable housing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think so, too, and I appreciate
that, Mr. Y ovanovich.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Unless you need me to go into more
particulars, you know, obviously it was unanimously recommended
for approval.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any other questions or comments by
commissioners?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- by Commissioner Fiala, second by
Commissioner Coletta.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll close the public hearing.
We don't have any speakers, do we, Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 179
June 14, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Opposed, by like sign.
Aye.
So it passes, 4-1.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, we'll now go to public
input. So the first --
MS. FILSON: There are two speakers that we told that it
wouldn't come up till after five, and then we have 1 7 speakers for the
rental registration fee.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, we only have one speaker for the
rental registration fee.
MS. FILSON: Okay. And that is?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This gentleman right here.
MR. SCARBORO: Gary Scarboro.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Are you registered, sir?
MR. SCARBORO: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I would -- before you get yourself
into a trick here, I would make sure that those other people are willing
to waive before you -- before you get that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there anyone -- raise your hands if
you've registered to speak on this subject. Okay. Now, there are five
people there, six people concerning -- including Gary.
MR. SCARBORO: And we had about 12 on call waiting for us
to let them know how the agenda was progressing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And you're going to vouch for the
fact that they've waived their right to speak, right?
MR. SCARBORO: For today, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. No, it's got to be forever. Okay.
MS. FILSON: And the time?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. How long is it going to take you,
Gary, to tell us what you --
MR. SCARBORO: I'm going to tell you 17 people's worth of
information, so I'll -- how about 10 minutes at the most?
Page 180
June 14,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's make it five.
MR. SCARBORO: Five.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, yeah.
MR. SCARBORO: Five. Good afternoon, I'm Gary Scarboro
with the Florida Apartment Association. I'm here in cooperation with
members of the Naples Area Apartment Association that covers
Collier County.
I've been getting calls for three or four weeks now from
concerned property managers in the Naples area in Collier County
about a fee that has recently been enforced. Apparently an ordinance
has been around for a while, but the enforcement of the fee is new.
Ordinance 2004- 58 contains language that provides for the
registration of rental dwelling units, including apartment homes. The
ordinance does not establish the fee, but the county's fee schedule sets
forth a fee.
Last year some of the properties received a bill for $20 for the
apartment community. This year they received a bill for $20 per unit.
And as you can see, that would be a substantial difference. Just for an
example, a 400-unit apartment community would now be billed about
$8,000 to register as a rental dwelling area.
Just in contrast, the Florida Department of Business and
Professional Regulation Division of Hotels and Restaurants also
requires registration of all rental dwelling units in the State of Florida.
They charge $210 per apartment community for that privilege of
registering. We're in favor of something more in line with that fee.
Apartments, as you may know, already pay their fair -- more than
their fair share. As far as ad valorem taxes, apartment communities
pay -- national studies have shown that they pay a higher
proportionate share of property taxes than single-family dwelling units
do.
We're now being asked to pay this additional fee, which is
coming across to us as a tax and not a fee. We've not received any
Page 181
June 14, 2005
validation as to what the fee is going to go toward, what it is going to
pay for.
Our first thought was it was going to pay for inspections, but
we've also learned this ordinance provides separately for an inspection
fee. Should your property be targeted by noncompliance or at the
discretion of the code enforcement office, your property will be
assessed $200 per dwelling unit inspection.
Apartment communities are friendly to Collier County. As you
discussed earlier in some of the other developments that you
considered, density is a friend to municipal governments. As you
know, placing density -- placing people in density and using density,
you can reduce the number of miles of roads, the number of miles of
infrastructure, and, therefore, reduce your cost of services to the
county and its residents.
So apartment communities are a good neighbor and a good
partner in smart growth, and we would like to encourage them, not
discourage them.
I've also heard mentioned here in the meeting today about
affordable housing. Apartments playa key role in affordable housing
by providing those levels of housing that provide balance in the
community. Everyone needs a place to live from higher end to lower
end on the income scale.
Collier County apartment communities are professionally
managed. There is an apartment association called the Naples Area
Apartment Association. It's one of 13 such local affiliates of the
Florida Apartment Association, and members of the apartment
associations tend to be better educated, better informed, better
communicated with, and, therefore, more in compliance with local
laws and ordinances. We feel like we're being targeted because it's
easy for a code enforcement officer to drive down the road and spot an
apartment community and see 8- or $10,000 in a new impact fee.
The proposed tax is too high. One of the property managers that
Page 182
June 14, 2005
was here this morning, he had to leave, said that he just paid $12,000
for his rental registration fee. He still doesn't know what he's going to
get for the $12,000.
I think I've covered most of it. The apartment communities have
paid, this past year, $8.9 million in ad valorem taxes. That's down
slightly from 2004 when they paid 9.1 million.
There's a condominium conversion going on, as you're probably
well aware of, so that number will probably continue to decline
slightly as the condominium conversions continue; however, that will
mean a tax windfall for the county of Collier as condominium
dwelling units tend to increase in value by up to 200 percent.
So we don't see this registration fee as being necessary to support
any loss in ad valorem tax revenue.
We would ask you today for your support in postponing the
implementation of this fee. We have a June 30th deadline looming
large. Many of the property managers here can attest to the fact that
code enforcement officers have been to their properties putting quite a
bit of pressure on them to pay the fees. Some of the property
managers have paid them, some of them are holding out till June 29th
to hope to have some postponement so we can discuss the issue
further.
We have other examples of rental registrations and inspection
programs in counties such as Hillsborough, City of St. Petersburg,
City of Clearwater, where they assess a dollar per unit fee of $25,
perhaps, and then $1.50 per unit for every unit over four. We'd be
much more in favor of something along those lines.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much, Gary.
MR. SCARBORO: Yes, sir. If I could, just one other minute.
We made a DVD for you this morning with all 16 of our speakers. It
has their thoughts on it. We'd like to provide that to you after the
meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Page 183
June 14, 2005
MR. SCARBORO: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have two commissioners who want
to speak.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: To the speaker that just spoke, I
just want to recognize, or hope that you recognize that you
contradicted yourself with the valuable aspect of apartments in a
community dealing with affordability and trip generation, or less trips,
but then you said they're all converting into condos.
MR. SCARBORO: Not all of them. Quite a few of them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MR. SCARBORO: It's a market-driven phenomenon. But that's
not a contradiction, it's just a market-driven occurrence that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is one of your members here
today representing Heritage Green in Golden Gate?
MR. SCARBORO: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I think that's why we
have an ordinance, an example.
MR. SCARBORO: There are definitely violations out there
among rental dwelling units and among homeowner dwelling units.
Code enforcement is one issue, but placing an exorbitant registration
fee on apartments is the issue that we're addressing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I think that was one of the
reasons when this was brought before the Board of County
Commissioners, some of us were able to come up with some good
examples of rental units and why this was put on, because there are
some people out there who, for no other better term, are slumlords and
cause a real situation, and so, therefore, it may put an added burden on
some of the other people who are in compliance with everything.
But the only way to control this -- because I think we also have
the ability now to go into those areas, into the homes, and inspect to
Page 184
June 14, 2005
find out, we're having a lot of problems in some areas of this county
where there's 10 to 15 people in an 800-square- foot house. So we're
trying to eliminate those problems.
MR. SCARBORO: Absolutely, and those are definitely
problems that should be dealt with through minimum housing
standards and through code enforcement, but not through the
implementation of an excessive fee.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Maybe staff could give us some
insight into what's going on out here, get a bigger picture.
MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, code
enforcement director.
Mr. Scarboro's correct that there is a $30 fee per unit for the
initial, and it's $20 per unit every year thereafter; however, he's
incorrect with respect to the enforcement of that ordinance.
This ordinance has been in place since 1997, and we have been
enforcing it since then. It's -- there are apartment complexes that have
failed to register since then, and we are now finding these apartment
complexes that have not registered for those years up until now. So
that is a part of the reason why, you know, they're not knowledgeable
about what the codes are indicating.
With respect to the cost, you all did amend your ordinance last
year to assess a per unit cost for the registration, and that was because
of an equity issue where we had apartment complexes that were
registering the same fee that individuals with duplexes or single homes
and those types of things, which was an equity issue. So that's why
the board actually decided to modify the ordinance to do it per unit.
We have looked at the cost. The cost equates to about two fifty
per month per unit. For renewal it's $1.67 per unit per month. And as
the commission has noted, this is something that we find is necessary
and is fair.
We have looked at other communities, and I did talk to someone
else in Florida Association that I've indicated that we would gladly sit
Page 185
June 14, 2005
down and look at the reasonableness of the fee, which we believe at
this time, based on the comparison that we've looked at previously
before adopting the modification -- and we're willing to sit down with
the association and see whether or not there's something that could be
suggested to the board.
But at this point there is an ordinance in place, there is a
resolution that establishes a fee, and we have no choice but to continue
to implement it. It would be a fairness issue as well if we decide now
to allow some apartment complexes not to pay when others have
already paid, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you -- I'm sorry. Some other
commissioners are waiting to speak. But have we assessed any
penalties from any of the apartments for years when they did not pay?
MS. ARNOLD: No, we did not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They're not -- you're not requiring that
they get current; you're just asking they pay the current year's
registration, right?
MS. ARNOLD: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So they've actually gotten a big break
over the past years --
MS. ARNOLD: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- if they hadn't registered before.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I think that one of the things
that's helped us -- and I'm glad that you're identifying those that hadn't
paid, because we're finding more and more apartments that we need to
take a look at. And I'm not saying that any of you guys have the
apartments that I'm going to mention.
But we've had a lot of unlivable conditions that people are living
in. Code enforcement and the sheriffs office have just made a few
sweeps down Bayshore, for instance. And they've found flophouses
that are divided into 10-mattress rooms with a curtain between each
Page 186
June 14, 2005
one. They've found filthy conditions with holes in floors and no
running water and no electricity, and I think this is important because
we have to identify these.
We have some larger complexes that -- the one that just provides
all of the filth to one of the roads. We're always in there trying to
clean up the stuff. And it's a nice-looking apartment complex,
hundreds of apartments. And we have another one where they have to
actually station a sheriffs deputy because there's so much crime
coming out of there. It's a tremendous problem that we're dealing
with, and over and over again.
I'm glad that they're registering. I'm sorry that the fee is that, but
at only $1.67 a month, I think that it can be handled. It's more
important for you who have good places to know that other places
now are being identified and we can clean up some of this -- this --
these horrible conditions that other people have to live in.
MR. SCARBORO: So this is an enforcement tax for the code
development?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, it just allows us to identify
where they are, that's what it's all about, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a fee, sir.
MR. SCARBORO: Well, like I said, the state is able to do that
for $210 per property.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's wonderful.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They're not doing a good job in
Collier County.
MS. ARNOLD: I just wanted to also mention that this, in no
means, is something targeting the apartment complexes. This applies
to all rentals, regardless of whether or not they're in apartment
complexes or if they're in single-family homes or in duplexes,
quadruplexes, and the like.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I'm concerned a little bit
Page 187
June 14, 2005
about some of the fairness of this. I agree with you, there has to be
some way that we can interj ect ourselves when people live in sprawl
or some landlords are not the perfect example of people that maintain
property in a meaningful way and are just looking to grab a profit and
run.
Obviously the people that are here today care and they care
enough. I'm curious about a couple of things. One, you're kind of
rewarded if you can avoid the process for as long as possible because
you don't have to pay any penalties for not belonging.
In other words, until the day comes that you catch up with the
particular apartment complex that hasn't registered, that particular day
you walk in the door, it's from that day forward that they're
responsible to pay. So there's no incentive for the honest person to
come forward and to do the right thing.
You know, when they're -- I mean, I'm not saying -- you know,
the system is always going to have flaws of some kind in it. We're
never going to come up with a perfect system. If we did, we'd all be
out of a job. But my concern is, what are we getting for this $1.67,
what, a week, was it?
MS. ARNOLD: A month.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Is there an inspection
performed every single year for this fee?
MS. ARNOLD: No. Mr. Scarboro also mentioned that there is
an inspection fee, and there is in the event that we do independent
properties. And if we're going to relate to apartment complexes, there
is a $200 inspection fee. It's not applicable to all of the 300 or 400
apartment complexes. There are a sampling of the inspection that is
performed, and it's done every three years.
MR. SCARBORO: It's up to five percent of the community.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So in other words, there's
already a fee in there that covers the cost of inspection. This money
that we're collecting, exactly what's it earmarked for? I mean, because
Page 188
June 14, 2005
there's got to be a cause and effect. What's the relationship for the
reason for collecting the money and how do we use it?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, I mean, I don't use--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The general revenue, is it?
MS. ARNOLD: I don't -- the money that we collect in our
development, just like our fines and our fees, any of the fees go into
the general funds. We don't use that. It doesn't go back into my
budget.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I appreciate the honest
answer on that. So this has nothing to do with the apartments
themselves and the condition they're in. It's a revenue tax that we put
on them, more or less?
MS. ARNOLD: It's a registration fee, that's what it is.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I mean, that's the name of
it.
MR. SCHMITT: It pays for services.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS: What service? What service?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, if I may. I'm going to
tell you what my thoughts are on it.
MS. ARNOLD: Well, let me just address what they're saying.
There is staff time that is associated with the processing, the collection
and everything of those fees. But when we establish a cost, it's not a
for-profit venture. It's something that we determine, there is a service
that needs to be provided for this registration, and that's what we
determined at that time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Is there some way
maybe in the future we might be able to get consideration? And I
agree with you that if all of a sudden we tried to withdraw this fee and
say, okay, no one from this point forward has to pay for it, then you
already have people that paid and they'd have to get reimbursed, and it
becomes problematic, I agree with you. But is there some way,
Page 189
June 14, 2005
maybe in the future, we might be able to come up with something that
would set it up so that the inspections could take place -- when you
have an apartment complex that's kept immaculate and it has no
problems, where maybe they can go for three years between
inspections.
MS. ARNOLD: That's the way it's set up.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, it is?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
MR. SCARBORO: Well, we've heard otherwise, but--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I think I've taken enough
of this. I still have concerns. I don't know how to really address their
concerns.
I think this is more of a general revenue Item, which isn't
necessarily evil. We pick up general revenue on everything we do out
there. We're already covering our inspections with the inspection fee.
So, you know, it's kind of hard to justify the cost of this to cover
the cost of registration when we already are collecting -- what was that
fee for inspection, 200-some dollars?
MS. ARNOLD: Two hundred dollars per unit that we inspect,
yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That we inspect. So we inspect
them every three years or five years, and you charge then, or is it
every year?
MR. ARNOLD: Third year, every third year. Unless there is
violations that are found repeatedly, then we would inspect them
every year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then they would pay that
additional fee for the new inspection every year?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. That's fair. That's what I
was looking for. I just -- I do have a problem with this fee though, but
for the moment, I don't know how I'm going to address it.
Page 190
June 14, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. What's the sense of the
commission? What do you want to do?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Leave it alone.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Leave it alone.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Leave it alone.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Leave it alone. The majority of the
commission says leave it alone.
Thank you very much.
MR. SCARBORO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sorry.
MR. SCARBORO: It's okay.
Item #10A
A REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE THE COLLIER COUNTY
ENGINEERING REVIEW DEPARTMENT TO EVALUATE THE
QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE
LIMEROCK AND HARD ROCK AGGREGATE WITHIN THE
LIMITS OF COLLIER COUNTY AND PREPARE A REPORT TO
THE BOARD WITH RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO WHERE
HARD ROCK MINING SHOULD BE ALLOWED BY THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DISCUSSED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We go to lOA now, County
Manager?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: lOA is recommendation to consider a request to
authorize the Collier County Engineering Review Department to
evaluate on the quantity and quality of economically feasible lime
Page 191
June 14, 2005
rock and hard rock aggregate within the limits of Collier County and
prepare a report to the board with recommendations as to where hard
rock mining should be allowed by the comprehensive plan, and Mr.
Stan Litsinger -- excuse me Stan Litsinger -- Stan Chrzanowski, from
the Engineering Department and community development's
environmental services will present.
MR. SCHMITT: As soon as we get him hooked up.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My
name is Stan Chrzanowski. I'm with the community development
division, environmental services -- or engineering services
department.
I've been in Collier County since 1981. My boss is named Tom
Kuck. He's been in Collier County since long before I've been here.
When we moved to Collier County, there were a lot of areas that were
not developed that are developed now.
The one thing Tom and I have both been involved in is
construction in Collier County. Tom, for a while, didn't work for the
county. He permitted and ran a few fill pits in Collier County, and I
worked for transportation for a few years and noticed -- and had a lot
of dealings with fill pit operators and contractors.
A few years ago we noticed that a lot of the commercial mines in
Collier County were coming near completion, not just hard rock
mines, but all kind of -- all kind of mines.
And this map that you're looking at, the commercial mining map,
I'd say is probably four or five years old. It was done when we were
trying to get under a new computerized tracking system for
excavations.
The pits you're looking at here, this is a pit down in Copeland.
This is -- this is the Sunniland Pit, State Road 29 and Oil Well Road.
This is Jesse Hardy's pit. This pit is off the north side of Sabal Palm
Road. This is Willow Run Quarry, the AP AC pit, Florida Rock's pit.
This is a large PUD that they're digging a very large lake inside,
Page 192
June 14, 2005
covers four sections. The lake is a very large circle in the middle of it,
and you have Longan Lakes, Winchester Head.
These mines were ongoing four or five years ago. I have a little
-- an additional exhibit here that I'd like to hand out, if I can. The
exhibit shows that a lot of those mines -- and I have a map here I'll put
on the visualizer.
The mines with X's in them are mines that are no longer in
operation. They've closed down. The pit out by Copeland has -- take
me back to the other one, will you. No. Take me back to the main
presentation. Thank you.
The mine out by Copeland is closed down. I think DEP bought
that one. They bought Jesse Hardy. The pit out at Sabal Palm is
finished. Willow Run is dang near complete. Sunniland is still going
strong. You have Heritage Bay being built where the Florida Rock
pits were.
Winchester is still digging but they're thinking of stopping
because the land is becoming so valuable. And they're out there
among the Estates, and we get the occasional complaint, but they're
still going. It's still a source of fill.
The pit up here off State Road -- off 846 is doing fairly well, so is
Longan Lakes, but we're -- we've got a lot of areas where the -- where
we're running out of fill.
Now, this presentation -- this is from a map by the United States
Geological Survey. It's a geologic map of Florida. You can see that
the land, or the land here is not all consistent. There is different
geological formations.
If you take a section through -- and right down here is a map of __
a little legend map of Florida. The vertical section north/south, this
section here, is what you're looking at starting at the Panhandle up at
the left side and going down to the Everglades down. You can see,
that's the Everglades.
Under here you have the Hawthorn formation, the Tamiami
Page 193
June 14, 2005
formation, the surficial formation, different varieties of material,
different types of rock, different types of sand.
We noticed a pattern when people came in and permitted mines,
pits, in their backyards, little excavations. If you remember a while
back, we had excavations going in Golden Gate Estates. And the
excavations we had going were all up in the northeast corner because
we didn't allow people to blast. And the only way they could dig was
if they were in sand.
And this whole area of the Estates up in here is where all the
excavations are. If you go down into the main part of the Estates
down here, here's the AP AC pit, there are no excavations because
there's all rock down there. There's all rock down south of here.
We had Stewart Mining, and he's still in DEP permitting. He's
north of Lake Trafford in this area off 82. The borings showed 80 feet
deep of sand. Most of the pits around here -- from our experience,
Winchester is not running into a hard rock out in this area, but these
old pits that were in the main sloughs and the wetlands down here,
they all had hard rock.
Now, when you overlay the mines on where the hard rock is, you
can see the pattern. These folks in here, that SR 846 pit, they think
they're starting to see some hard rock. They think they can get
DOT -grade lime rock and hard stone.
Jesse Hardy out here was in the middle of it, that's why he was
getting DOT -grade rock. Willow Run, Florida Rock, all those, were
getting DOT-grade rock.
By the zoning ordinance, the green areas are where -- this exhibit
was done by the long-range planning development quite a while ago,
probably six months to a year.
The green areas are where you're allowed by zoning to mine.
The red areas, you're not. By the future land use element, these are
the areas, the red, where you're not allowed to mine, and the green
areas are where you can.
Page 194
June 14, 2005
When you superimpose the unminable areas on the mine map and
on the map showing where the hard rock probably is, you start to
notice a pattern that we're getting in an area up here where it's all sand
but yet that's where we're going to let people mine from now on.
Present limitations on mining between Golden Gate Estates and
in the striped area, these greenish PUDs over here, the SRAs, other
areas where you can't mine, as you look at the map, you start to see
that we're going to block people from mining anyplace where there's
hard rock.
Now, Lee County recently did a study, and I gave a copy of it to
Sue. Roughly about the same thing. A few years ago when we went
to do our impact fee for excavations, hauling across the road, we had
about four million cubic yards a year coming out of pits in Collier
County and getting hauled to Collier County job sites.
Golden Gate Estates, we're building at the rate of about 1,000
homes a year, or were. I don't know if that's slowed down or sped up.
And a house out there uses about 1,000 to 1,500 cubic yards of fill to
build.
That's about one to one and a half million cubic yards of fill just
to build house pads in Golden Gate Estates every year. Then you have
roads that you're building, you have other buildings that you're
building.
We're running short on future mines that are opening up. But
when it comes to hard rock -- and the hard rock is the rock that you
use to make -- there's two types of concrete. There's asphalt concrete
and Portland cement concrete.
Portland cement concrete is what you call ready-mix concrete.
It's a mixture of rock, sand, and cement, comes out in a truck and gets
spread, and you get concrete sidewalks and whatever.
The Portland -- the asphalt cement concrete is also rock and sand,
but it's got an asphalt binder, and that's your roads.
Now, the stronger the rock is in those mixes, the better your
Page 195
June 14, 2005
concrete's going to be and the better your asphalt wearing surface is
going to be. We're rapidly putting a lot of areas into preserve that are
the only source of hard rock in Collier County.
When we do that, we'll probably have to buy rock from other
locations. And I've heard a number, that if you're hauling rock more
than 50 miles, that you start running the cost up to where the hauling
is actually more than the material cost of the rock itself. And
engineering staff is not sure what we want to do about this.
It seems as though you have environmentally preserved a lot of
the county, which is nice, which is great, but it's like we have a
resource out there, and I don't know whether anybody wants to go for
it or not. I guess my -- the total sum of my presentation is, I think we
need a little guidance from the board as to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess we don't have a
chairman.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, we do. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: In the presentation we had few
conclusions. We can either do nothing and see how it goes, or we can
do a study to see how much rock we have and where it is and whether
it's worth getting to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: From my personal experience, it
costs me $100 for a load of dirt just to haul it. And it costs $130 for
the dirt, so we're very close to being even and very close to exceeding,
and I don't think it's good business to, you know, depend on other
counties. It's going to be a -- we'll just have to give Mr. Feder some
more money, not only to build roads, but fix roads, and then
Commissioner Coletta's going to be upset, or some of the other
commissioners are going to be upset because the dump trucks are in
the way of the general traffic. And I think it's a real problem that we
need to deal with personally.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to say that -- are you
telling me that Florida Rock was not fully mined out before they sold
Page 196
June 14, 2005
all of that property?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Out to Heritage Bay?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I think they could have kept digging.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm surprised that we didn't put --
figure this out some time ago and -- because you just made a comment
that there's more and more people who are mining that are thinking
about selling their property because it's more advantageous than to
mine rock.
I guess what we need to do is figure out a way of enticing these
people that have the rock pits to keep them in operation. And I know
that Florida Rock, at one time they had huge, huge piles of rock, and I
just assumed that they had mined everything out.
But what you're telling me, there's a very good possibility that
they had a huge volume left there but decided that it was more
advantageous for them to sell it than to mine it; is that correct?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir, I believe so. I do know for a
fact that Winchester Lake, when it first came in, I talked to the
developers and asked them why they were digging right to the edge of
the one square mile. They were not leaving enough room around for a
subdivision.
At the time he told me that it was more advantageous for him to
dig the rock to the edge, he would make more money -- not the rock.
But this was just fill. This is not even rock. But he would make more
money digging right to the edge of the property and not leaving
enough land to build a subdivision around the outside.
At the present time they're looking at Ave Maria right down the
road and saying -- and Golden Gate all around them, which used to
cost, what, $10,000 for an acre and a quarter lot, and now it's 100,000.
They're looking at -- the price of land has gone up, and it's just better
to sell the land than it is to dig the rock, to dig fill.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you think that one way to
Page 197
June 14, 2005
address this would be to give the mine operation some type of
incentive so they stay in operation?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, for one thing, I think we need to
do a study. I think we need to figure out where the rock is in the
county. And we, in engineering, are the ones that get all the problems
when these pits have trucks on the road at different hours, noise
complaints because the pit's starting at four o'clock instead of five or
SIX.
We would prefer to see any pit far away from civilization. But
the only place you can put a pit far away from civilization is places
where presently we can't put pits. So yeah, we'd love to see pits put
out there, but I'm not sure -- it's almost like you need a study of where
we can put them.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I think first what we need
to do is to recognize, if there is a problem, be able to put the data
together in a way that we can take a look at it, then we can make a
logical decision.
We may have to look at this the same way we look at farming,
which we try to preserve, and coming up with some way that we
might have an overlay where we recognize certain areas that are going
to be future rock mining, and that's the extent of it, you know.
I'm not too sure how we can do it, but we've done it in the rural
fringe and the rural sending lands and identified farmlands, and tried
to encourage the continuation of that particular industry. So I, for one
-- what do you think a study would cost; do you have any idea on that
at this time?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, if we didn't have a really good
idea that we know where the rock is, we probably wouldn't have
suggested this. No, sir, I don't, but I'm pretty sure if you looked at the
maps I gave you, that that's where the rock is, and anything else up
there is probably not worth -- it's just fill.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we don't really need a
Page 198
June 14, 2005
physical study to go out and do borings from one end of the county to
the other?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Lee County apparently did one with a
professional geologist. But a lot of it looks like it was research work.
We have borings from Ave Maria that show what the rock looks like
through there, we have borings from the water management district,
we have the existing mines and we have borings all over -- all over
Collier County.
We might be able to just do a research of what we have and come
up with -- when I first suggested this, we had more time to do it, too,
but we've been a little busy lately, so --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So your suggestion would be?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'd make a -- I make a
recommendation that you do the study. One of the things you want
from the study are where the locations are best for different kinds of
aggregate that you -- that would be advantageous for Collier County
in the future, some kind of an estimate on volume that's in that
particular area, and then take a look at the environmental
consequences of a mining operation in that particular area, too.
So you bring all those things together when the staff comes back,
and then we can have a dialogue with the environmental community
and whatnot, and the development community, as we go through this
process.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The only thing I would suggest is that
we be careful not to limit this totally to Collier County. I'm not saying
we go out in Lee County and Hendry County and do an extensive
study of what's there, but in some cases, we may find that the area
coming out of Lee County might be more advantageous for them to
deliver rock than someplace in Collier County. Collier County's a big
county, and if you have to travel all the way from one end to the other
to drop a load of rock, I think you'd be exceeding that 50-mile mark.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Adding the counties that border our
Page 199
June 14, 2005
boundaries would be a good idea, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do we have public speakers on
this?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir, we have three.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Nancy Payton.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We'll start offwith--
MS. FILSON: Brad Cornell.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: He'll be followed by Nicole Ryan.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you handle that in about three
minutes?
MR. CORNELL: Three minutes? Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, good.
MR. CORNELL: Brad Cornell with Collier County Audubon
Society. I understand why engineering has -- and Stan had brought
this in front of you.
I'm concerned that, as you have just heard and witnessed relative
to Ave Maria and the rural land stewardship policies, and as you know
with the transfer of development right policies, Collier County has a
great deal invested in protecting rural resources. The three-year rural
assessment was not a light bit of reading that we did on the weekend.
The county invested a great deal, as did the land owners, the
environmental groups, and the citizens of Collier County. This has to
be considered in the context of such a mining study. Lee County just
did a mining study for the southeastern portions, the DRGR, and a
ground water resource study, and I don't think that that was sufficient
to not look at any surface resources.
So we have looked at the surface resources and agriculture.
We've looked at what we intend to preserve through very innovative
policies. I think this would fly in the face of those policies and be
counter to many of them.
Page 200
June 14, 2005
So recognizing that you have rock needs, then the county needs
to look at ways that they're going to satisfy those needs. And if that
means pulling together a group of interests, the engineering, the
natural resources interest, the planning, the growth management
interest, and your community, that would be the way -- that would be
the group to discuss what policy direction you need to take relative to
this and find out what kind of recommendations would come out of
that kind of discussion.
I think a mining study all by itself should not be going straight to
the compo plan for amendment. If the folks who run mines want to do
that themselves and sponsor an amendment, that's their prerogative.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Nicole Ryan. She's your
final speaker.
MS. RYAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
Nicole Ryan here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
And it looks like a lot of the information that you need to make
some of these decisions was actually brought forward in the
presentation from Stan. It almost seems that it's more of a policy
decision, does the county want to go in and start looking at what could
potentially dismantle some of our hard-fought environmental battles
for the rural fringe and the rural lands program.
So I think that could be a slippery slope; however, if an
assessment is going to be done, then the Conservancy would ask that
any looking at the quality and quantity of this minable rock, taking
into account not just where the rock is located under the surface, but
also looking at what the zoning designation is and if there are
designations such as rural fringe, rural lands, and also the
environmental protections on these areas.
And in doing so, I believe that it needs to be more than just the
engineering review department. We need to have planning staff and
the environmental staff really involved in this. You know, we had the
Page 201
June 14, 2005
final order, which it took years and years to come up with these plans,
and we do have a plan. The mining needs to be sent to the receiving
areas. The sending areas are very environmentally sensitive.
So I think we want to be very careful in any sort of assessment
that would potentially open up that area to mining. And, likely, we
could not get a compo plan amendment passed through the Department
of Community Affairs for that.
So we would ask that any sort of study, first of all, include not
only engineering but environmental and planning staff and, secondly,
that what they bring back is an inventory, a presentation of data, but
that it not be sent strictly to a recommendation for a comprehensive
plan amendment. I think that that is something that is way premature
at the moment.
And also, the county needs to consider long-term. At some point
we will run out of rock that we can mine here. The rock may be there,
but environmentally it may not be feasible. And if you looked at
trying to get permitting through, economic feasibility does tie into that
environmental feasibility.
So I think we have to look at other areas and potentially how
we're going to deal with the needs in the future. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's the end of our public
speakers?
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Stan, would it be possible to
come up with -- look at the possibility of what's out there presently
that's not environmentally sensitive? Is there any areas left in Collier
County?
And then the other question I have here, is there a possibility that
we can have some type of working agreement with maybe a
neighboring county, such as Hendry County? Do they have -- do you
think they have a lot of rock?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Lee County, I know, is shipping fill and
Page 202
June 14, 2005
rock down to us on a regular basis. And according to them, they have
supplies for -- I just got that study yesterday. I haven't had a real
chance to read it, but they talked about taking out of the ground maybe
three or four thousand -- or three or four million cubic yards a year,
which is about what we were doing. And I don't know if we're still
doing that now that so many of them are shut down. I don't know.
Dade County is awful far away. I don't know how -- I don't
know whether Hendry County has any rock type of fill.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could you just make--
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: We could find out.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- put together a study and report
back to us where we're at on this issue?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: When Lee County did theirs, the one
thing I did notice is, hydrogeologically, they looked at not only Lee
County, but every county around it, and according to them, they did
743 acres of Collier County as part of their study.
So I still have to wind through that thing. It looks like there's only
about 20 pages of real substance to it. The rest of it all looks like
exhibits.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What do you need from us? Do
you need some kind of guidance so you can get --
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I think Joe's going to ask how he's
going to fund this thing.
And as far as Nicole's questions about -- you know, we don't do
any of this in a vacuum. We get other people involved in it. It gets
look at by other departments. We generally have meetings that
involve the environmentalists, the planners, and it gets reviewed by so
many boards, something like this, that none of this would be done sim
-- even if engineering review were to do a study, by the time it hit the
Environmental Advisory Council, everybody would be involved in it.
So I don't think she has any worries about that. Everybody's going to
get input.
Page 203
June 14, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Mr. Chairman, I think the next
person was Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I would like to give that
guidance to give a study, and, you know, I think we take great pride in
being inclusive, bringing in the community for their input. I
understand the concerns from Mr. Cornell, how it might affect the
environment, and maybe this is another exercise for the public to do
instead of, you know, our staff.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where do you get the money?
One thirteen.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: We're funded by the development
community, and this study does benefit the development community,
physically man-hours.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, again, Joe Schmitt. And I
would have no problem with that, it's just using the staff. We would
do this similar to what we did with the listed species, form a
committee, again, I'm using staff, taking away staff from some of their
principal duties, and certainly that's reviewing petitions and permits
and other type of things to deal with something as specific as this. So
that's where we're looking for your guidance on.
MR. MUDD: Joe can outsource this, too.
MR. SCHMITT: I could outsource it. I'd have to budget it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's the best way.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't we let private industry find
out where it is, and if they need rezoning to do it, we can address the
issue, but --
MR. SCHMITT: And that's an option.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- they're far better qualified to do this
analysis than we are.
Page 204
June 14, 2005
MR. SCHMITT: Members of the industry aren't here to talk, so
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Well, maybe what we should do
is get the word out, have a meeting. Maybe you should have a meeting
with them, get all of the mining operators or prospective mining
operators together and say, look, go out and find some land, try to find
it in a nonenvironmentally sensitive area, and if you've got something
good, bring it before the county commission and see if we'd be willing
to rezone it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Have to rezone.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay? Commissioner Fiala, you wanted
to speak.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was so good, I don't have
anything to say.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is that okay with the
commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Great, that's great.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Item lOB -- and
we've got direction.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
Item #10B
SELECTION OF QUALIFIED FIRM AND AWARD A
CONTRACT UNDER ITN 05-3583 "CEI SERVICES FOR
COLLIER COUNTY ROAD PROJECTS" FOR PROJECT NO.
60169 "RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK ROAD SIX-LANING
PROJECT FROM POLL Y AVENUE TO COLLIER
BOULEVARD" IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,517,581.00-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: 1 OB is a recommendation to approve selection of a
Page 205
June 14, 2005
qualified firm and award a contract under ITN 05-3583 CEI Services
for Collier County Road Projects for project number 60169,
Rattlesnake-Hammock Road six-Ianing project from Polly Avenue to
Collier Boulevard, in the amount of$2,517,581. And Mr. Calvert, the
interim director for engineering for transportation, will present.
MR. CALVERT: Mr. Commissioner -- Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners, glad to be here today. This particular proj ect is -- or
what's before the board today is for approval for CEI Construction
Engineering and Inspection Services for WilsonMiller for
Rattlesnake- Hammock.
Rattlesnake- Hammock, of course, as you're aware, is going to a
six-lane road from Polly Avenue to Collier Boulevard. The contract
for CEI Services is $2,517,581.
We do plan on receiving the final plans for the proj ect on June
20th. Weare looking to advertise to -- for construction in mid July
this summer and bring it to the board here at the September meeting
for the award.
We do have all the permits in process. If we do not have all the
permits by September 13th, we'll postpone it, but we do have the ERP
permits. The only thing we're waiting for is endangered species. The
estimated cost for this proj ect is approximately $20 million.
Currently we have planned a completion of 24 months. We did
have a public information meeting in April for the 90 percent plans.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When you're saying $20 million, you're
including the cost of the entire project, not CIE (sic) plan?
MR. CALVERT: That's in the entire project, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But you're just looking for approval of
the CIE (sic) portion?
MR. CALVERT: The CEI --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: CEI, yeah.
MR. CALVERT: -- which is, yes, Commissioner, 2.5 million.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Is there a motion?
Page 206
June 14, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion for approval, Commissioner
Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any other discussion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Absent.)
MR. CALVERT: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's unanimous. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Item 10C. It's to
provide a status report of the special master process approved by the
Board of County Commissioners in 2004.
And I believe Mr. Joe Schmitt was going to present.
Item #10D
APPROVE THE COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING
ORGANIZATION'S (MPO) OPERATING BUDGET FOR FY
2005/06 ($449,834 IN NEW FEDERAL AND LOCAL FUNDING),
INCLUDING $9,233 COUNTY MATCH TO THE FEDERAL
PLANNING GRANTS RECEIVED BY THE MPO - APPROVED
So I'm going to 10D. It's a recommendation to approve the
Collier Metropolitan Planning Organizations' MPO operating budget
for FY -2005/'06, and including $9,233 county match to the federal
planning grants received by the MPO, and Mr. Charles Bamby, no
Bambry?
MR. BARMBY: Barmby.
MR. MUDD: Bombry (sic), okay. I'll get it right. Bombry will
Page 207
June 14, 2005
present. He's your MPO coordinator.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Barmby.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And this has come before the MPO and
they, of course --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- approved it. Okay. Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Halas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second for conversation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
And a question by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not a question, a statement. If
you take a look at it, it's $5,000, City of Naples, $2,000 for -- no,
excuse me. City of Naples, 2,000; Marco Island, 1,000; Everglades
City, 1,000.
A couple of points I'd like to bring up. I mean, it's not a lot of
money, but to Everglades City, this is a tremendous amount of money.
I mean, 600 people. They're in a zone in a highway zone where
there's no impact fees because we're not going to build any roads.
They've got a member that just came on back about, oh, three months
ago. It seems like the portion of money we're asking for them to pay
is quite high, and I'd like some consideration on that.
MR. BARMBY: And just for a point of clarification, that match
is actually for the MPO's lobbying efforts, which are not covered or
not eligible expenditures with federal dollars.
And last year, the MPO board had made a policy decision that
$1,000, or a request will be made that $1,000 per voting member on
the MPO board would go into this -- go into this account. And so now
with Everglades City having one voting member on the board, what
we did is we took that policy decision and just added the $1,000 to
that local match requirement.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Barmby, was that -- was
Page 208
June 14, 2005
that decision made before the gentleman came on from Everglades
City?
MR. BARMBY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And see, they're not
aware of this at all. It didn't come before the MPO when Everglades
City was involved. At that point in time, it was Marco Island, Naples,
and Collier County. That was the whole extent of it.
I think that we need to -- if we could, I'd like to see this delayed
for a meeting so that Charles can get down there to Everglades City
and talk to them rather than just suddenly dumping on them and send
them a bill for $1,000.
MR. BARMBY: And at least in terms of the unified planning
work program document that was approved by the MPO, it has a
number of the funding sources that were outlined that really we still
need to get, for example, federal highway funding. Even though the
dollars are earmarked there, we have to still-- we must get an
authorization to actually use those dollars after July 1 st and, likewise,
we're going to the other cities as well and making the formal request
for the match.
And so the budget really just would allow us, or would shore up
what MPO board has already approved in the context of the UPWP.
What we're doing now is making a formal request at the state, federal,
and local sources for those dollars to actually get the check in hand to
begin spending funding available as of July 1st.
And so that's why, at least in terms of the budget, it allows us to
have those dollars available and to spend them as needed, but we're
also working with our funding agencies, not only at the local level, but
also at the federal level to actually get those -- get those funding
commitments and start spending those dollars.
And so we can certainly, as part of that effort, go down and meet
with Everglades City and their representatives to make sure they're
comfortable or clearly understand the request and the reason why it's
Page 209
June 14, 2005
there. But in terms of the operating budget, you know, certainly just
having those line Items there, there's really no teeth to it until we get
the check in hand from those cities.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And when we do recognize the
different in size between Collier County's responsibility and the City
of Naples -- and I saw it and kind of questioned why all of a sudden
Everglades City, who's just minuscule population compared to the
other entities, is going to be bearing the same amount of cost. And,
you know, we're talking about more than a dollar per citizen. That
would be probably the same -- what's Marco Island, 20,000 people?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fifteen anyway.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, so it would be -- $15,000
from Marco Island would be the same comparison. Well, even more
so because there's less than a thousand people.
Just food for thought, you know. And plus, we haven't talked to
them about it. And I know there's going to be repercussions coming
back on this. Ifwe could only wait until our 28th -- the meeting on
the 28th, would that be at all possible, or is that going to be raising a
big problem?
MR. BARMBY: I think that we could still move forward with
the operating budget as proposed, and then if need be, after we meet
with Everglades City, come back and actually go through the MPO
and amend our unified planning work program to make adjustments to
the $1,000 amount.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would appreciate that, you
know, at least the dialogue get going so -- you know, I know that we
would react very strongly if Southwest Florida Water Management
came to us and said, okay, now your share was so much because you
weren't at that meeting, but we decided this was what the cost was
going to be just for an example. But if we could do that and if this
commission would agree to wait till then, I think it would be a fair --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think if -- there's no problem with
Page 210
June 14, 2005
doing that. But if we do that, then let's establish a policy. Ifwe're
going to break it out based upon population, let's do it for all the cities,
okay?
So I think if you're going to calculate it based upon the
population of Everglades City, you need to calculate is based upon the
population of Marco Island, and in Naples, and then the rest of it gets
picked up by the county.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, but we're only -- we're
talking all together, it's what, 8,000 -- how much, $8,000?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right now in terms of -- we're
looking at around $16,000 total for both the local match we're talking
about in reference to Everglades City, and also a required local match
to our federal transit administration grant, which in the case of
Everglades City, we've waived that because, of course, there's no fixed
transit service anywhere near Everglades City. So that match we're
not charging towards them at this point. In terms of the $1,000,
because of the lobbying efforts, because of, you know, scenic highway
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The lobbying effort's what we're
talking about --
MR. BARMBY: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- right now, and in the lobbying
effort, the total amount is what, $8,000?
MR. BARMBY: Right now it's eight. It would be nine if
Everglades City had the $1,000.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Nine thousand with Everglades
City. So if we took $9,000 and broke it down by population, I
wouldn't have a problem in the world with it, but still, I'd like the word
to get to Everglades City that this is taking place, even if the bill's only
2- or $300, a suggestion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, the MPO heard this,
Page 211
June 14, 2005
right?
MR. BARMBY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have a representation from
Everglades City, Marco Island --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: He wasn't there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and the City of Naples. Now,
there wasn't any objection then. Commissioner Coletta, you were
there. Why didn't we deal with it at that time, and then --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Because Everglades City wasn't
a member of the MPO. This is after the fact.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, the -- we should
have dealt with it at MPO. The next meeting, I can tell you it's going
to be a two-day meeting. So, you know, I understand your concerns,
but let's be more proficient on raising concerns at the right time. We
had plenty of time at the MPO meeting to do this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, Commissioner Henning.
The MPO meeting --
MR. BARMBY : We actually approved the unified planning
work program at the May 13th MPO meeting, which was the first
meeting where Everglades City was a voting member.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. BARMBY: I know that this Item did not specifically come
up. So Everglades City may not be fully aware of that $1,000 match
requirement.
And certainly I can go down there and speak with their
representatives and make sure they understand what they get for that
$1,000. And we can certainly make adjustments at the MPO level to
the unified planning work program based on those discussions if that's
-- you know, as far as -- if that's acceptable to the commission.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if this is for a lobbying effort, you
can always -- you can always tailor down your lobbying effort based
on the contribution to Everglades City. So if you're out $1,000, it
Page 212
June 14, 2005
won't be a $9,000 lobbying effort, it will be an $8,000 lobbying effort.
Is that correct, Mr. Barmby?
MR. BARMBY: Absolutely correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'm not saying Everglades
City won't want to contribute to it. I'm just coming up with the fairness
of it and the timing of it and the fact that Everglades City hasn't got
due notice. That's all.
I mean, we're going through an awful lot of work for a small
amount of money. It's just proper notice being given to them rather
than just a bill in the mail.
I like what you're suggesting, Mr. Barmby, is, you know, that we
go ahead and put it together, but you go down and talk to them at
Everglades City and then we'll deal with it at the MPO level about
how we're going to handle it if there's a problem on their end.
So where does that leave the motion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It leaves us with Commissioner Halas
with a question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My understanding when we were
on the MPO before Everglades City came onboard, I thought we
discussed something similar to this in regards to the lobbying, and it
was going to cost somebody -- or each city was going to have to
belly-up and pay a certain amount long before an Everglades City
representative came onboard. Okay.
So I would think that that -- that they realized that when they
became available to sit at the table with us, that there was going to be
some responsibility on their part to be a part of the MPO table; am I
right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, you're not right. You're
assuming something that they have no knowledge of. Until Mr.
Barmby can go down there and talk to them, we don't know exactly
how they feel about this.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no, no. I'm saying when we
Page 213
June 14, 2005
discussed this before, a year ago, in regards to this lobbying effort --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- okay, and we established the
rates at that time or we established that we wanted it so that every city
or every --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Every member of the MPO.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Has to be a part of the
lobbying effort, okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right, got that far. So when--
the day that the representative from Everglades City sat down at that
table, he should have known ahead of time that there was going to be
an obligation because he had a seat at the table. That -- what I'm
saying is, he should have known that ahead of time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But let's ask Mr. Barmby,
because he's the one that briefed the Everglades City representative.
Did that come up in the conversation?
MR. BARMBY: I know it never came up in any conversations
with me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I don't know what
else to say.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Is there a motion to approve
this budget?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
MS. FILSON: I have a motion and a second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: By whom? Refresh my memory.
MS. FILSON: I have a motion by Commissioner Halas, and a
second by Commissioner Fiala.
Okay. All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 214
June 14, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 4-1, with Commissioner
Coletta in opposition.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, let's go to -- are we ready to go with
C, 10C? Oh, yes, it's time for a break.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
Item #12A
CONTINUED FROM EARLIER IN MEETING - APPROVED
We have a five o'clock time certain, which is 12A, and I believe
Mr. -- and this has to do with the Bert Harris claim asserted by
Van-Dev, Inc., and I believe that Mr. Yovanovich is the speaker on
this particular Item, or is it Dr. Bing?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's Mr. Yovanovich. Dr. Bing is not
permitted to speak any more.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: He doesn't like it when I get the last word
though.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you're not going to get the last
word, I can assure you of that.
MR. MUDD: Can Dr. Bing have time for rebuttal, sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I hope there won't be any, because I think
we had a productive period in discussing the proposed settlement.
The agreement we reached with Dr. Bing and his groups
regarding building height would be 90 feet zoned height, we would,
Page 215
June 14, 2005
instead of the required setback being 45 feet, one half of that, we
would increase that to 50 feet for the garage and 52 feet for the
building on the two side yards. The front yard -- front yard will still
be 50 feet for both the building and the garage.
We also met with staff, and we -- the proposal -- I'm going to --
it's a -- I'm going to put this on the visualizer. It's obviously not to
scale, but just to show you what it means.
The beach access easement along the northern boundary would
be 20 feet in width, and we're going to provide an additional 10- foot
easement each along --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It would be better for me if north were
north on this thing, that way we'd know exactly what we're talking
about.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's north, perfect. You need to pull it
out.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where's the water?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Water's on the left.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Keep going. You've got to get to --
you've got to get me to the northern boundary line. Keep going. All
righty.
Along the northern boundary, there would be a 20- foot wide
beach access easement, and along the area adjacent to your
right-of-way, you see the word 10-foot. We would provide an
additional 10- foot easement. That would make the ability to build the
facilities for the county. That would give them the additional room
they need to build adequate rest room facilities.
We would also pay the $500,000 we talked about before. The
release would be provided 30 days after we reach our -- we achieve
our building permit, provided no injunction has been issued. And I
think I've covered all the terms; have I not? That's -- and I think, Dr.
Bing, have I properly summarized everything?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas? Go ahead.
Page 216
June 14, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So with 90 feet, then we're looking
at the total height of the building of about 130 feet; is that correct?
When we talk about ratio, what -- at 100 feet, it was going to be 140;
is that right, or 145, 140?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So about 135 would be the -- we have a
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. One thirty-five?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have a document in with the county
right now, and we would simply remove a floor, take -- that's how we
would lose the 10 feet. So whatever that is today, subtract 10 feet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I have one other question
for Marla. The amount of money that's being put on the table at this
point in time is -- my question is, is it going to address all the needs as
far as addressing if we can make a turnaround at that location?
MS. RAMSEY: I think he has more comments on that one,
Commissioner.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry. The turnaround also stays in
and --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would hope.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Go ahead, Marla.
MS. RAMSEY: Well, when I talked to the developers a little bit
about the dollar amount, I talked to them about possibly building the
improvements because they can do it a little faster and a little cheaper
than we can, and that $500,000 would get us a lot closer to coming to
the conclusion on that project and probably in a timelier manner, too.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what you're saying is, they're
going to pay for the construction of the bathhouse or bathrooms, or
whatever, is that what you're saying, and then there's going to be an
additional 500,000?
MS. RAMSEY: No.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What are you saying?
Page 217
June 14, 2005
MS. RAMSEY: No. We had estimated that the cost for making
the improvements would be about $500,000. That's today's dollars. If
we're looking at three, four years from now --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Is this going to -- is this also
going to address the turnaround area, to put that in?
MS. RAMSEY: That was -- the original estimate was $500,000.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm asking you, is that going to be
sufficient?
MS. RAMSEY: Well, Commissioner, that's the guesstimate that
I've got from my staff, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But if I understand you correctly, it
doesn't make any difference whether your estimate is correct or not,
they're going to build it? No? Is that not true?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Actually, no. We didn't want to be in the
building business, but we did agree, if -- that our purchaser would bid
on the work, and they believe that they'll be more than competitive on
bidding on the work than to do the work as far as that goes, but we're
not committing to build it.
We're willing to give you the $500,000 for your budget, but
Signature Communities has said they will bid on the work and they
think that they'll be competitive and better than what you would get
from your normal county bidding process.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can we get a commitment from
Signature Properties that they will do it for less than 500 -- or
$500,000 or less? Just say yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner, the problem is, they don't
own the property, okay? So we need to -- there's obviously -- we have
to make sure that they go through with the acquisition. So you're
asking me, on behalf of my client. We're committed to giving the
$500,000. That I can control today. I can't control the ultimate
closing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Can you run this horse by
Page 218
June 14, 2005
us again one more time?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So you're saying that you're going
to give us 20 feet of right-of-way?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're going to give you an easement for
20 feet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: An easement, and then there's
going to be additional properties involved in this to accommodate the
bathrooms or whatever else, and you're going to -- whoever buys this
property is going to make a bid, and you feel they'll come in under
what the county would normally have to pay for building these
structures, or structure, whatever?
My question is, and you're -- you're giving us the property to
make the turnaround and $500,000?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. We're giving you a 20-foot
easement, the 10- foot easement, the easement area you need for the
turnaround, and then $500,000 towards the construction of the
facilities, and if Signature closes, they will bid on it and they believe
that they will come in cheaper than what you would get from your
normal county process.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then my final question to
Marla is, is this going to be adequate?
MS. RAMSEY: Yes. The other thing that they did not mention
is that they would accept all of the landscape buffer on their side of
the 20- foot, not on -- not on our side. So we would have a full 20 feet
for us to put in our landscaping element that we would like to do, but
the full buffer element would be taking place on their property, the full
amount.
And, yes, we negotiated it, and the extra 10 gives us a little more
wiggle room up in the front in order to make it happen both for the
rest room facility overhang and vending area.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
Page 219
June 14, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I remember somebody saying
something this morning about the $500,000 to build the facilities and
buy a shuttle. I just remember hearing that just once.
MR. OCHS : Yes. Commissioners, Leo Ochs, for the record.
When we first entered into the settlement discussions, we had talked
about, perhaps, them contributing to a portion of the cost of the shuttle
along with the improvements along the property line that have been
discussed.
That negotiation ended up, you know, in a proposal from the
developer to offer $500,000, and we thought that we could make the
required improvements and, perhaps, have some money to put towards
the cost of a shuttle. I don't know how much, Commissioner.
Depends on the bids.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So if they can build it cheaper than
we can, which they -- sometimes does happen, then maybe we would
have enough money left over to buy the shuttle, correct?
MR. OCHS: Or put some money towards the cost of the shuttle,
,
yes, ma am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion?
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: If I may, just before the motion. Because--
because this is a project with the county, the construction project is
ostensibly over $250,000, a bidding process is necessary, and so Mr.
Y ovanovich, on behalf of his client, has indicated that they expect
they can very competitively bid.
But we, the county, in having a proj ect go forward, will be
required by state law to bid. So that's what they're going to do. So it
may be that we have a savings if they are the lowest and best bidder.
And if someone comes in even lower than they are, whatever their bid
may be, whatever the lowest and best and most responsive bid is, that
will set the -- well, you might say -- the floor to determine if there's
Page 220
June 14, 2005
any money that's left over.
And before you take your motion, I'd like to ask a question of Dr.
Bing, if I may, who has been in the process this afternoon working
toward this discussion.
This morning he spoke in the stead of many people, and as you
know, part of this arrangement that you'll be asked to vote upon
includes a release factor from the Bert Harris claim based upon -- and
Rich may wish to restate it -- but it's based upon a 30-day passage of
time after the building permit's issued and in which there's no lawsuit
creating an injunction.
So by virtue of the fact that Dr. Bing, both in his own capacity
and a representative capacity, appears to be endorsing the agreement,
the settlement today, I'd appreciate that ifhe would, on the record, so
state that he endorses it and for which homeowners' associations and
another groups that he's representing, if you could.
DR. BING: I'm president of Vanderbilt Beach and Bay
Association and Chairman of the Vanderbilt Beach Zoning Committee
which comprises Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners' Association as
well as VBBA.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
DR. BINGE: And I am their spokesman today. And we will not
file an injunction when you get your Circuit Court approval. You
need Circuit Court approval to contravene the code, right?
MR. WEIGEL: No. A lawsuit has not been filed.
DR. BING: I understand.
MR. WEIGEL: And there ostensibly will not be a lawsuit filed
by the developer if a settlement is reached by the county government
and the developer.
So the only lawsuit that would come into play here, ostensibly, if
the board and the developer, through Mr. Y ovanovich, reach an
agreement, would be the lawsuit to stop this settlement being filed by
third parties, such as the homeowners' associations that you're
Page 221
June 14, 2005
affiliated with and represent or any other persons up there, and I
recognize that you may not be able to speak for everyone --
DR. BING: Right.
MR. WEIGEL: -- that lives up there, but you are apparently here
speaking on behalf of certain groups, and you've just so indicated.
DR. BING: I'll have to go back to our counsel, but I understood
that any agreement that you enter today must be approved by a Circuit
Court if it contravenes the current zoning requirement, which is a
maximum of75 feet. Maybe somebody can correct me.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. Our counsel will be happy to respond.
MS. WORTHINGTON: Sure. Lisa Worthington with Garvin
and Tripp. I'll respond to that, Your Honor -- sorry, the commission.
You can tell I'm not in my element.
There are two provisions in the Bert Harris Act that have to do
with settlements that involve adjusting of things. When you're
adjusting a regulation or an ordinance, there's one requirement. When
you're adjusting a statute, meaning a state statute, there's another
requirement.
Adjustment of a regulation of ordinance does not require Circuit
Court approval. What it does require is the protection of the public
interest that we talked about earlier today, and that the settlement itself
is appropriate to relieve the burden imposed by the regulation.
It's only when you've got a settlement proposal that abrogates or
modifies a state statute that that has to go to the Circuit Court for
approval. The reason for that, as is probably logical for you all, is that
your regulations and ordinances are creatures of your making, so
you're the body that decides whether or not the public interest is
protected.
With a state statute, state legislature is the one which would have
imposed that law or regulation, so then you have Circuit Court
approval and review to make sure that what the commission would be
doing in terms of that type of settlement is actually furthering the
Page 222
June 14, 2005
intent of that state legislation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So the really essential issue here is that
Dr. Bing represent that he will not legally oppose this settlement?
MS. WORTHINGTON: That is absolutely correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Whether it goes to the court or doesn't go
to court, he is not going to oppose this settlement.
Can you make that statement, Dr. Bing?
DR. BING: Yes. We will not oppose this settlement.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then I think that is legally
sufficient, right?
DR. BING: Can you give me a second to read something,
please?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: David, you happy with that?
MR. WEIGEL: It's legally sufficient. Yes, I'm happy with that.
Additionally, if there is to be a motion to go forward with the
settlement as proposed and offered here, I would suggest that the
motion maker and second, if there be one, incorporate those same
statements of goals and obj ectives that are advanced by the settlement
that show the consistency with the land development code and the
Vanderbilt Beach R T overlay.
I read those earlier, and they had been incorporated into a prior
motion which failed, and I would respectfully request that those same
elements be -- and they have been stated on the record in a little longer
form by Susan Murray. I would ask that those elements be
incorporated within the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to pass until they get done
the discussion before I ask the final question, and hopefully before we
make a motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I was just going to ask Dr.
Bing and his representatives, one of the things we take into
Page 223
June 14, 2005
consideration is the residents, and being that they were speaking this
morning, I wanted to know if this was something that you all could
live with?
DR. BING: I think what point I tried to make this morning was
that a 100- foot building with 50-foot setbacks was really bigger mass
than a 75-foot building with a 37-and-a-half-foot setback, and the
exact equivalency was about 85 feet.
And we've compromised to 90 feet because 85 doesn't give them
two extra floors, 90 does, and they've compromised on the setbacks to
52 feet on the side from the 50 feet that we talked about. So we've
compromised both ways. So to me, it's a win-win.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That's what I needed to
know. Thank you.
DR. BING: There are a lot of concessions. The county benefits
from them in the public interest, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commission Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Dr. Bing, you've had discussions
with the other president of the other homeowner group that was
involved in this, and everyone's come to an agreement on this?
DR. BING: I have not talked specifically with B.J. --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: A representative?
MR. BING: Yes, correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a motion here?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'll make a motion to approve
with the compromises that have been established and discussed here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The -- and I will second that.
And let us -- let us enumerate the compromises that have been made,
and you're going to have to follow along with me.
You're going to allocate an easement of 20 feet in width all the
way to the beach, whatever length that is, but it's estimated at 300 feet;
you will provide an additional easement of approximately 10 feet near
the entrance to the walkway for the purpose of building rest room
Page 224
June 14, 2005
facilities; you will allocate the necessary space for the turnaround that
will be developed; you will have setbacks at, I believe, 50 feet at the
garage and 52 feet for the building itself.
MR. MUDD: Side yard.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Side yard set backs; you will give --
contribute $500,000 to Collier County Government for the purpose of
constructing the improvements; and that you would expect that your
rights to sue under the Bert Harris Act would be waived within 30
days after receiving your permit for construction.
And all this is done with the understanding that Dr. Bing has --
has stated that he will not -- that he and the associations he represents
will not oppose this settlement agreement.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the height is 135 feet max.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Height is 100 feet permitted -- 90 feet
permitted.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Permitted, ninety feet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ninety feet permitted --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Permitted.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- with a maximum height of about
135 feet is what the gentleman in the back said.
MR. WEIGEL: And $500,000.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I said that.
Was there anything I missed?
MR. MUDD: Nope, you got it all, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we have a motion and a
second.
And is there any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 225
June 14, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. And the reason that I'm -- the
only reason I'm opposing this is I still feel that the grounds for a Bert
Harris were very, very weak.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The motion passes 4-1, with
Commissioner Halas obj ecting to the motion.
Item #10C
A STATUS REPORT OF THE SPECIAL MASTER PROCESS
APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
IN 2004 - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Item 10C, and it's
to provide a status report of the special master process approved by the
Board of County Commissioners in 2004.
Michelle Arnold, the Code Enforcement Director for Community
Development's Environmental Services, will present. And I know, sir,
she will -- she will be brief.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, I will be brief.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Very brief.
MS. ARNOLD: Good evening. Michelle Arnold, for the record.
I have a PowerPoint presentation for you.
This is just an Item giving you a status of a program that you
approved in 2004, in June of last year. It was for the special master,
which was an alternate to the Code Enforcement Board process.
That process has been implemented, and we actually started
scheduling hearings. The -- there was two positions that were granted
to my department as opposed to that process, and that is the office of
the special master OSM, and that -- they have been scheduling
Page 226
June 14, 2005
meetings for the special master, they've been hearing and processing
citations and cases before the special master for not only my code
enforcement staff, but for the sheriffs office. And we are also --
they're also charged with monitoring liens that are -- come out of that
particular process.
Your special master is Brenda Garretson, and she hears -- she
holds at least two meetings a month with an average of 40 cases per
meeting, or per hearing. This has been a very successful process. It's
been an efficient process over one that would have been continuing in
the court system in that we are assessing less of a cost to respondents
that come before the special master for hearing costs than they would
in the court system.
As I had indicated before, a part of the process is citation
processing. All the citations processed before the special master are
paid through the office of the special master.
For those that are unpaid, we are working with a collection
agency to get collection of those unpaid funds. And all the funds, of
course, are deposited into your general fund.
This is just identifying for you, up until April of this year, some
of the revenues that were collected on a monthly basis. And as you
can see, the -- starting with February after the process had an
opportunity to work its way through, we started increasing in revenue
on a regular basis.
This breakdown here just gives you an idea of the revenue that is
collected for citations, which percentages are applied to the sheriffs
office. For false alarm, as you can see is, right now, collecting the
most revenues, and then our parking citations are also up there, and
with the code enforcement citations playing a part in that.
We, as I indicated, are very happy with what's been taking place
so far with the special master process. We are hopeful that we will be
able to expand it and be able to have the special master here for parks
and recreational citations that they issue, cases of the domestic animal
Page 227
June 14, 2005
services as well as utility billing.
We're also having discussions with the special master to possibly
introduce a new conflict resolution process that would look at
nuisance cases as well as conflicts between neighbors and those types
of things, and, of course, continuing our efficiency.
This chart before you just provides for you an indication of those
citations or fines that have been assessed. What percentages, or the
portion of them highlighted in the darker green is actually what's being
collected or pending -- or what's being paid as opposed to what's being
pended. So we are collecting quite a bit of the revenues that are being
accessed.
This is just a summary for you of our accomplishments. We've
collected, as of April, about $155,000 for that process. We have
processed over 5,000 citations, and received payments for about 20
percent of those.
We have also scheduled over 100 cases for those citations that
have been contested. And the special master, as a part of her hearing
process, has generated about $5,000 for court costs.
And that is my brief summary, if anyone has any questions.
I just want to thank you all. This has been a pretty successful
program, and I think that we're going to continue our success and
continue to hear cases before the special master.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Job well done.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The example of the rental
registration, if somebody doesn't pay their rental registration, will they
go before the special master?
MS. ARNOLD: They could go before the special master, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did you work out a compromise
with the folks out in the hallway?
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. We're going to meet with them and try to
Page 228
June 14, 2005
come up with something.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess I have to ask the county
manager, what don't we understand of leave it alone directed by the
Board of Commissioners? When we were asked what to do with that
-- you were directed to do that, right, go out there and talk to them?
MS. ARNOLD: No. I went out there and talked -- we've
compromised that we're going to sit down and talk, and so we're
probably going to schedule a meeting next week to discuss.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the board directed to leave
it alone.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nothing wrong with talking.
MS. ARNOLD: We are leaving it alone.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can't change it unless you bring it
back to us, right.
MS. ARNOLD: Absolutely. There's nothing that we have the
authority to do without --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Don't bring it back because the
Board of Commissioners said, leave it alone. Am I wrong?
MR. MUDD: The Board said leave it alone, sir. I understand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Good report. Thank you very
much.
It's important that people understand why you set up this special
master. It's because if these infractions went before the courts, the
fines wouldn't come back to Collier County Government.
MS. ARNOLD: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And by setting up the special master, we
get to keep the fines, right; am I correct?
MS. ARNOLD: That's right.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. There's about three benefits you get.
Number one, it's a program that pays for itself and you get a little bit
extra going into the general fund. If you would have went into the
Page 229
June 14, 2005
court system, not only would the fines go to the state, you would also
have to pay a court fee that was pretty hefty, if I remember correctly.
It was about $40 at one time per case.
So it exceeded what you get for revenue, and the revenue would
go. So the county would have to pay money for the system to work,
and the fines would go to the state. So we would be out money
instead of breaking even and making a little bit of money on the
special master side of the house.
And the third thing that it gives us is the fact that you basically
take a workload off the court system by having the special master.
And especially when you were three judges short, it helps a lot in that
-- in the other building across the way.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you very much.
MS. ARNOLD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good report, Michelle.
MS. ARNOLD: Thank you.
Item #10E
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 ~OOO - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 10E. This Item
continued from the May 24th, 2005, BCC meeting. It's a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners waive
repayment of fleet expenses totaling $121,100.82, which are due from
ATC/Intelitran, Inc., and supplement their insurance payment up to
$187,000. And Ms. Diane Flagg, your alternative modes
transportation director, will present.
Page 230
June 14, 2005
Commissioner, I will-- there's one thing that I must say on the
record. You must have some resolution on that $75,000 that you
allocated to this program to kind of get them over the hump until this
meeting. It was three weeks ago. That $75,000 was vouchered
against insurance payments.
And I believe that -- and based on my conversations with the
clerk, that that $75,000 should be subtracted from the $187,000 that
you have on this particular Item. So I want to make sure we get that
resolved on this particular Item.
And I turn the floor back over to Ms. Flagg.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just a point a clarification. The way this
Item is written, it indicates that we're going to be making a decision to
give somebody over $300,000. It says $121,000, which are due, and
supplement their insurance payments up to $187,000.
MS. FLAGG: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So that adds up to over $300,000; is that
correct?
MS. FLAGG: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now each of the commissioners,
I believe, has received a briefing on this from the principals involved?
MS. FLAGG: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do any of the commissioners have any
additional questions concerning this?
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess it's more of a legal
question. I think -- what is it, A TC or whatever --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- whatever.
MS. FLAGG: ATC is with -- whom the county's contract is
with.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. The one that we have the
contract with, and they -- we have a subcontractor.
Page 23 1
June 14, 2005
MS. FLAGG: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I believe that they -- they have
the ability to resolve this themselves instead of coming to the Board of
Commissioners.
So the legal question is, can the Board of Commissioners give
direction to blackball a company from bidding on future bids, or can
we give direction on -- to score this company on their performance?
MR. KLATZKOW: We can certainly take that into
consideration in the bidding process. Certainly past performance does
matter, or past imperformance does matter, so, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or the lack of.
MR. KLATZKOW: Or the lack of, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't think it's so much the fact
that they didn't perform. It's just that the cost effectiveness here leaves
something to be desired.
If I read this correctly, of the $187,000, hasn't there all ready
been paid out of that about $75,000?
MS. FLAGG: Correct. Per the board's direction at the last
meeting, $75,000 has already been paid, which leaves the remainder
of $112,000 of their request.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And what about the
additional 121,000? Is this -- this is the protected expenses until end
of the contract; is that correct?
MS. FLAGG: The 121,000 is for fleet expenses that have
already been incurred, and what they're requesting is for the county to
waive the 121,000, which is through April of this year. So these are
past fleet expenses incurred, and then they would pay any fleet
expenses incurred from April forward, through the end of the contract.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The last question I have,
what assurances have we got that they're going to live up to the
obligation to the end of the contract without the county incurring
Page 232
June 14, 2005
additional expenses?
MS. FLAGG: What we've got is, in Exhibit B of the agenda
Item, we outlined that the insurance would be paid on a monthly basis,
and also that the fleet expenses would not be waived until the contract
was completed and they had completed the contract in a satisfactory
manner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are we going to pay them, or are
we paying the insurance up front?
MS. FLAGG: No. The insurance has already been paid by ATC,
Caring for Kids. So in July, we would -- we would reimburse
insurance payments. And we get invoiced by ATC. ATC passes that
on to Caring for Kids.
So what we have done is ensure that they pay the insurance, and
then we would reimburse them for their insurance expense on a
monthly basis so that we don't get out in front of them. We've done
that -- in Exhibit B, we've outlined that for both the insurance and also
for the fleet expenses. We're going to require that they successfully
fulfill the contract before we agree to waive them.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have a couple of observations. In
reviewing information I received, there are two things which
contributed to this cost overrun by the subcontractor. One is that the
subcontractor failed to include in their cost estimates the agency fee
which they pay to the prime contractor. That is something that I do
not think the government should be held responsible for. I think the
prime contractor and the subcontractor need to work that out
themselves.
And with respect to supplementing insurance payments, the
insurance premium went up dramatically for the subcontractor. And I
don't know why, and I don't know why there has not been a request for
alternate insurance quotes from other agencies to see if there's a better
pnce.
Page 233
June 14, 2005
But again, without knowing why the insurance payments, I don't
know, doubled or tripled -- it was a huge increase in insurance
payments. I don't know why that happened, because a number of
vehicles did not change according to the insurance application. So I
just am a little concerned about how that happened.
And I, quite frankly, can't make the leap that the taxpayers of
Collier County should be held responsible for that. But I certainly
don't want to harm a company that is trying to provide a reasonable
service for people in Collier County. But I -- I can't approve payments
in this amount for this contract. I really can't do that.
I guess the best I could do is try to help them with the insurance
payment increase and see if there is a way that we can get a better
quote from another insurance company somewhere.
MS. FLAGG: Commissioner, just as a clarification, they did
note that the insurance information that they left with you all in the
packet, that it doesn't reflect an increase of vehicles, but, in fact, there
was substantial increase in vehicles to take over as the primary
provider for the TD system, which is the reason that the insurance did
increase significantly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, then, what that tells me is that they
calculated their bid incorrectly, because if they knew they were
increasing the number of vehicles, they should have known their rates
would increase, and that should have been included in their bid. And
once again, the taxpayers of Collier County should not be responsible
for the fact that somebody calculated the bid incorrectly.
And this is not intended at all as a criticism of the service they've
been providing, because I understand they've been providing good
servIce.
MS. FLAGG: Yes, they have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And they've been doing it even though
they're losing money, and they're to be commended for that. But I
don't how, under the law, that I can approve taxpayers' money to be
Page 234
June 14, 2005
spent because subcontractors made a mistake. I just don't know how
to do that.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I think sometimes we have to
take a look a little bit deeper. It's great to go by the book and it's great
to have everything according to the letter of the law.
I think in this case when we hired on this little company, and it
was just a mom and pop company who just had a little agency who
cared for deeply dis -- not only disadvantaged, disabled and
handicapped children, and they all needed to be picked up, and the
county and -- through A TC and Intelitran had gone through two
providers were who were actually not picking the patients up, not
delivering them, and not getting them on time. There were so many
problems with these handicapped people that were supposed to be
picked up that we had to drop two carriers in a matter of two years,
and that's after many, many hardships had taken place.
And so we got ahold of Caring for Kids. But I don't think that --
you know, in their defense, possibly they didn't know how to bid on
something of this magnitude, not only that, but their service improved
so dramatically, and, of course, they had people that really assisted
these patients, these people that needed this transportation.
And I think that not only that, they just happened to arrive in the
midst of the gas war and -- crisis, and so the prices increased
dramatically, never having expected that, and so did their insurance
rates and I don't think that they knew how to bid properly.
I feel bad about that, but I think that they've learned a big lesson
here. And so from what I understand, ATC went out to see if anybody
else could bid on this in the fall, and the only one that did was the
person -- the people that we got rid of.
And I would like to see not only us give them a chance, pay these
bills, but assist them as they -- as they put together a budget for next
year that's more realistic and the taxpayers could live with. I don't
Page 235
June 14, 2005
want to see us lose this service.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Was that a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pardon me? And I make a motion
to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. And Commissioner, Fiala,
I know that you've been very close to this for what, four years now?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Five, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Five years, and you have a deep
understanding of what it is and you know what it would be like not to
have this service.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, my goodness, do I, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if we did anything other
than to justly reimburse them for the cost of providing the service,
then the service would go away. So it's my pleasure to second your
motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Fiala, a second by Commissioner Coletta.
Do we have any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion fails 3-2 with
Page 236
June 14, 2005
Commissioners Henning, Coyle, and Halas voting against the motion.
Is there an alternative motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there some way we can meet in the
middle on this?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, anything we can do to
keep the service in place, I think, would be a tremendous benefit.
Maybe the provider of the service might have some suggestions.
We're definitely at an impasse here. Would you step up, sir?
MR. TEJERINA: Yeah. My name is Gabriel Tejerina. I'm the
owner of Caring for Kids, the provider of transportation.
The first clarification I would like to make is that on my estimate
of -- I mean, the amount that we agreed at the beginning for myself
providing services, was consistent with my expenses throughout the
contract.
If you look into the paperwork that I submitted to you, when I
went to visit you, you're going to find that my proj ection was for
$2,218,000. A TC, while I say now, that they call it an expense
analysis. In the expense analysis, they show that my expenses will be
$2,150,000, with 554 -- $2,150,554.
So it was calculated properly, the rates, in the amount that we
agree on, we wouldn't be here. The full amount, I mean, I never would
be here asking for money, even though my insurance went up, even
though my field costs went up. You know, it wasn't miscalculation.
And that calculation, it wasn't my burden. That was the burden of
the contractor. And that was, you know, I don't know if the county
consider -- to us, and the county contracts with somebody to do this
for them.
So basically, I'm going to be losing all this money, while I have
the LCB agreed to this amount, you know, and because of
miscalculation between A TC and the state, I going to end up paying
for this. It wasn't because I didn't have the right budget or because I
Page 237
June 14, 2005
didn't bid it right. It's just because when I submitted my budget,
somebody didn't calculate it the way they should.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's why I think that particular
problem with respect to the agency fee should be resolved between the
prime contractor and the subcontractor.
I have no problem with working out some additional payment to
compensate you for the increased fuel costs, which you couldn't have
anticipated, I understand that, and maybe even the insurance cost, but
I can't deal with both of them.
Does the clerk have some input? Do you have some thoughts on
this?
MR. JOHNSSEN: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No? Okay.
MS. TEJERINA: May I speak?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, please.
MS. TEJERINA: I'm Betty Tejerina. I was here at the last board
meeting. And I just want to make sure that you all are totally
informed about how this all has come about.
And I need to make sure that you understand, what Gabriel was
trying to tell you is that we budgeted a certain amount, we passed that
budget to A TC, A TC passed it on to the county. It was approved by
the county, the LCB, the TD commission, everyone. So we expected
-- we don't probably have anything in like super writing I can show
you that our budget went everywhere in the amounts that we asked
for, but we are not getting the amount that we asked for and the
amount that was agreed upon. So if we were getting it, we wouldn't
be here. That's what he's trying to tell you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, Betty --
MS. TEJERINA: We may be a small company, but I can tell you
with numbers, this man is absolutely fantastic. And I can guarantee
you he budgeted the right amount to deliver great services with no
problems.
Page 238
June 14, 2005
But let's say that we budgeted 2.2, and he maybe got 1.8. In the
meantime we have been flipping that bill for the community, and I
wanted the community to know that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, Betty, your
figures were actually --
MS. TEJERINA: Absolutely correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- on mark, but then ATC came in,
and your figures, they took their percentage that was never --
MS. TEJERINA: As a matter of fact, when we budgeted for
insurance, I believe we budgeted -- and we budgeted based -- we
didn't pop it out of our heads. You know, we talked to our agent and
they gave us a price. And at that point it was like -- what was that?
MR. TEJERINA: And at that point for, by the bills that we were
paying, it was about $125,000. When we went and shopped around for
insurance. We have only one company willing to ensure us.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. TEJERINA: And we didn't have really any other choice. If
we didn't pay this amount, we had to shut down at the time, you know.
It's one bad situation after the other.
We came into the service and the chaotic situation. The previous
provider, they never asked for a raise. I don't think that they had any
notion how much money they were losing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So Gabe, actually, if you would have
received the money you budgeted, you would not be here?
MR. TEJERINA: As a matter of fact --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. TEJERINA: -- we have in the mail, andwe--youknow, it
explains -- what first explains the A TC forgot to budget the
management fee.
MS. TEJERINA: And the rates.
MR. TEJERINA: And the rates. But also, it's -- you know, it
states -- in the TD commission they change in the way we get paid for
Page 239
June 14, 2005
the trips, and they blend all the rates, and they figure the 9.7 percent
with the blending equal the 24 percent that the LCB approved. But,
you know, afterwards, and seeing what happened, the 9.7 never got to
be, equal to the 27 percent. And besides, you know, the two-fifty
management fee was forgotten.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Here's my problem. The last meeting,
we had a presentation, I think, from A TC that said the problem was,
the management fee wasn't budgeted, and then we had a presentation,
I think, from our own staff that said, the fuel costs went up, and those
were the two reasons that we had a problem.
N ow you're saying to us that you really did budget it right but
you're not getting paid what your contract was approved at; is that
correct?
MS. TEJERINA: That's correct. Basically--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That was--
MS. TEJERINA: -- that -- there's truth in the entire thing, and
I'm pretty sure that A TC would want to come up here and talk as well.
Insurance did go up tremendously, that's true. Maintenance of
the fleet went up crazy. Apparently the last provider was not really
taking care of the vehicles, and when we inherited them -- these are
the county vehicles that I'm talking about -- we had to do major
repaIrs.
The gas went up, and the two-fifty was not figured in within the
rates. Again, I want to make sure -- because at the beginning when
somebody stated, they stated -- one of you, I can't remember who it
was -- that the subcontractor failed to figure that in there. That was not
our role. And -- but we are being totally penalized.
And so it's a combination of things that did it. Basically if it had
been one or the other, the shortage would have been a lot less. It
might have been like, you know, maybe 75-, $100,000 that we would
have been short, but not like it was because of the entire combination.
So I just -- I would plead for you, that you consider this. I think
Page 240
June 14, 2005
that we have been fantastic providers. I think we have bailed out the
community twice already, including when Goodwill flew away.
These are the people that responded to you, and I strongly feel about
that.
And, you know, for you to punish us in that manner -- I don't
know what you would be able to do in terms of what contract you
have with ATC. I don't know if you have a surety bond. I don't know
what legally can happen, but we really should not be punished,
because we submitted a good budget. We're just not getting the
money.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. TEJERINA: And we have held up against many, many
things, that you have no idea.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
MS. TEJERINA: Thank you.
MS. FLAGG: Commissioner, just as a clarification. In your
executive summary it does outline that the reasons for Caring for Kids'
shortfall is the two-fifty brokerage trip, the fuel, labor, maintenance,
and insurance expenses.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MS. FLAGG: Annette Corey, with -- excuse me -- ATC would
like to speak to this issue.
MS. COREY: Hi. This is not a pleasant issue. I understand. I
did prepare a statement. My name is Annette Corey, C-O- R - E- Y. I'm
with ATC. I'm a financial and business analyst, and I would like to
give everyone my answers to the question that I was given frequently,
what is A TC doing about this problem.
The problem is threefold. The shortfall was not caused entirely
by the two-fifty error made by our general manager. It was also the
insurance -- the increase of insurance, and Ms. -- we did try to assist
Mr. Tejerina in getting additional insurance quotes, and he is right,
there is no one else in this area who was willing to quote him
Page 241
June 14, 2005
insurance, and so he was stuck with the $250,000 quote that he was
given as opposed to the 100,000 that he had budgeted. That was his
first and one of his largest shortfalls.
His second shortfall was the doubling of the insurance -- excuse
me -- the fuel and maintenance from the previous years. He used
those numbers to budget his -- he used the previous years' figures to
budget for fuel and maintenance, and those figures also doubled from
roughly 90,000 to 180,000, so that was another serious shortfall.
And he feels very strongly that his contingencies would have
covered pretty much those shortfalls, then with the additional problem
with the two-fifty management fee being missed when he -- he
submitted his quote for what he felt like the rate increase should be,
and our manager failed to increase it by our management fee because
he thought -- and this is where the mistake lies -- and it's an
assumption, and there's no doubt about it, this is totally ATC's error--
when he was presented with the budget -- with the price per trip that
Gabe gave him, he assumed that the two-fifty was included, and that
was his mistake, and ATC is bearing the brunt of that mistake.
What we have done to mitigate his losses is, Mr. Solberg and I
have been assigned by our corporate office to come down here and try
and -- just first off, find out exactly what happened. Where did this go
so horribly wrong.
I did a financial analysis, and Mr. Solberg, who is very
operationally adept, came in and did a system-wide analysis to try and
work out ways to become -- for Mr. Tejerina's operation to become
more efficient. There were lots of inefficiencies. And we felt we
could work with him in getting it.
We also turned over a large portion of our profit, about $2,000 a
month. This is a very small operation for A TC. A TC generally runs
much bigger systems, fixed route paratransit systems for much larger
cities and the Cobb Community Transit, a lot of them in North
Carolina into -- I didn't do it -- into Las Vegas. We run the Las Vegas
Page 242
June 14, 2005
system.
This paratransit division was acquired through several business
convergences, and it's much smaller an organization than we're
normally dealing with. We normal have staffs of hundreds of people
at our offices. Here we have a staff of four and we subcontract all our
operations out to our -- to Mr. Tejerina.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you get to the bottom line and tell
us --
MS. COREY: The bottom line is --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, wait a minute. Let me ask you a
question.
MS. COREY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The subcontractor's saying they prepared
a budget, and if they were getting paid what they had submitted in the
budget, they would be okay. Can you tell me why they're not getting
paid --
MS. COREY: They wouldn't have been okay. I'm sorry. I
disagree with Mr. Tejerina. His budget did not include $250,000
insurance and it did not include 180,000. They feel like they would be
breaking even, and maybe just losing a little bit more money.
The amount of money that they're losing because of A TC's error
is roughly 20 thou -- well, with taking away the 2,000 that we've
returned to them, is about 18,000 a month.
I'm predict -- I have -- in my analysis, I show that they're losing
more like 25,000 per month. So they still would not have been okay.
They would have been at a closer break-even point though.
We're not coming here today asking for any kind of assistance for
the two-fifty management fee. We are trying to work with Mr.
T ej erina on that. Through these efficiency efforts and the money that
we are giving him, we're trying to mitigate those -- some of those
losses.
What we're coming here and asking you for today is for the fuel
Page 243
June 14, 2005
and for the maintenance cost and the insurance costs that were so
exorbitant when he quoted them over a year -- that have gone up and
just went so out of control.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Of the amount of$121,100, how much
of that is due to fuel costs increase?
MS. COREY: That -- I'm not positive on that. I think the fuel--
it's -- fuel and maintenance are generally -- are in your billings
combined together.
So say, for example, on the last month -- yes, greater than 50
percent of it is fuel. The total bill was 20,546, and the fuel portion
itselfwas 12,901, and that was last -- that was the bill for April. So
over 50 percent of the bill is for fuel.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the $187,000 is for insurance only?
MS. COREY: Yes. That's his--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What is the annual premium for the
insurance?
MS. COREY: Two hundred fifty-six thousand, but you have
already made some -- or you've already paid several -- and out of the
187, we're down to 112 because you also paid 75,000 just last month.
So the 256 premium for the year.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, how much is that above the
premium before the increase?
MS. COREY: I'm sorry. I know that Mr. Tejerina's original
insurance quote was 125,000. So it's 125,000 more.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it doubled?
MS. COREY: So it doubled, over his estimate.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So what I'm looking at is a fleet expense
of $121,000, of which 50 percent is the result of higher fuel costs.
That's roughly $60,000. And then we're looking at $112,000 for
increased insurance payments, to yield a total of about $172,000,
which represents increased costs --
MS. COREY: Yes, sir.
Page 244
June 14, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- that appear to be beyond the control --
MS. COREY: Of Mr. Tejerina, definitely, and ATC for that
matter.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, there is an additional amount of
loss that is quite sizable for him because you didn't budget the agency
fee that was supposed to be --
MS. COREY: We didn't include the agency fee in --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- included.
MS. COREY: -- what was requested. And yes -- and ATC
acknowledges that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, are you making him whole on
that?
MS. COREY: We're not entirely sure yet. I am not entirely sure
what my company plans to do to help him out. I know we have
contingencies, and we are certainly making efforts on his behalf. I do
not know if my company is going to hand him a check to make him
whole. I would think that that would be a discussion for him and my
boss, the vice-president of the company.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, now, if you're coming here to ask
us to take taxpayer money to pay for increased costs of operation --
MS. COREY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and you're not willing to take your
responsibility to pay for your error --
MS. COREY: I understand where you're coming from, sir, but I
don't really -- I don't -- we only make about -- 4,000, 5,000 a month
here is our profit. We've already turned over half of our profit to Mr.
Tejerina in the Immokalee shuttle co-pay and pretty much --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, based upon what I'm hearing, he's
making a lot less than you are.
MS. COREY: No. He's not making -- well, he is making less
than we are, yes. We're going -- we anticipate making a loss on this at
the end of the project because we don't anticipate that Mr. Tejerina's
Page 245
June 14, 2005
going to be able to make his other -- the forgiveness that we're asking
of the fuel and maintenance only goes through February -- no.
The fuel doesn't go through the entire period. It was only
through the period where I had done the audit, which I think is
January or February, the 121,000.
He has incurred more fuel and maintenance costs since that we
don't anticipate that he's going to have -- that he's going to be able to
recover. I'm anticipating that A TC will probably owe that to the
county at the end of the contract.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But you're saying to us that the amount
of money you're asking us to pay now is to cover costs that have
already been incurred and does not cover any potential losses from
this -- from February forward; is that right?
MS. COREY: On the fuel, yes, and I anticipate ATC will cover
these losses. It's a losing proposition, and we have to -- A TC, and I as
A TC's representative, we do accept our culpability. Our manager
really --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Plus you said that the vehicles
hadn't been serviced properly in the last couple years, so we had to
bring all those -- and they're county vehicles.
MS. COREY: He had to bring all the -- they're county vehicles,
and he had absolutely no control over the maintenance. The county
dictates the maintenance of the vehicles, and that was an extreme
increase that he was not anticipating also.
When he -- he did anticipate an increase in his fuel and
maintenance based on how many new vehicles he had coming in, just
like he knew that there was going to be a large increase in insurance.
His previous year's insurance was $16,000 for eight vehicles, and the
quote that he was using and the amount that he used to run his budget
figures was 125, knowing he had to bear the liability of the county
vehicles.
I don't know the exact stream of consciousness that everybody
Page 246
June 14, 2005
had in his budget. I do know that his budget actually fell short on
several Items. When I went in and did the analysis, I found that he
really wasn't budgeting enough for the maintenance of not only the
county vehicles, but his own vehicles. But that's -- those are his -- his
numbers that he came up with.
He had about -- he had figured a contingency of almost
$100,000, which immediately disappeared with the insurance. He
figured some profit in, which immediately disappeared with the --
with the amount of money that we didn't include into the LCB quote
to ask for the management -- excuse me -- I'm getting tongue tied.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, let's--
MS. COREY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to ask a couple questions.
MS. COREY: Yes, please. I'd love to answer, if I can.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: To start off with, with the
insurance rate that it went up so high, was this because there was
accidents with the vehicles that the rates went up?
MS. COREY: Not particularly. I think there might have been
one accident that Mr. Tejerina's dealing with that was quite severe.
That still, even for transportation, the fact that he's paying so much per
vehicle is still astronomical, and it has to do with the area that he's in,
that he's down here and there's not a whole lot of transportation
providers. Lee County has some, Monroe County really doesn't have
much in the way of transportation providers.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. How many -- how many
people use his service?
MS. COREY: About 400 trips a day -- wait a minute. Let me --
about 520? Five hundred twenty trips per day.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And this is people who have
handicaps?
MS. COREY: Handicaps, disadvantage -- transportation
Page 247
June 14, 2005
disadvantaged, they're financially disadvantaged or -- it's actually
more likely a combination of financially and medically disadvantaged.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now, in the past we had someone
else that was providing this service and was not doing the job; is that
correct?
MS. COREY: No. Basically we ran them out on a rail, Checker
Cab, and Commissioner Fiala has --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So who would pick up this slack if
we don't take care of the bailout, that's basically what it is.
MS. COREY: It is. It is, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, who's going to pick up the
slack? How is this going to be addressed?
MS. COREY: I think it's going to have to be a three-way -- my
optimum solution to the problem is three-way. Mr. Tejerina's going to
take some loss, A TC is going to take some loss, and hopefully the
county's going to provide a little bit of taxpayer funds to continue the
loss be mitigated somewhat.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But that's not my -- that's not the
answer I was looking for.
MS. COREY: I'm sorry. Then I didn't understand the question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Who's going to take up the slack if
this provider goes out of business? Because obviously we're not going
to use Checker Cab because obviously they didn't provide the service.
So my question is, who -- is there someone out there in the wings
waiting for this contract?
MS. FLAGG: Commissioner, by contract, ATC would be
required to find another provider. The county did tell ATC, go find
another provider. The response that we got back was that the only
provider that was willing to consider taking on these transports was
the previous provider that they discontinued their contract.
MR. MUDD: Now, Commissioner, if there's no provider that
A TC can find, you go breach of contract, then you go back out for an
Page 248
June 14, 2005
RFP and you bid out the whole thing over again. And oh, by the way,
we'll be -- and we'll do whatever we have to do with the surety
company and try to work those claims.
And then for the next couple of months, based on the RFP, we'll
be -- it'll take us about a month before you award again, so there will
be a discontinuation of services for that month, and then you're still
looking at anywhere from two to three months worth of budget that
you're going to have to put against it until you find out how you're
going to work out a claim.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. I'm listening to
this whole thing go back and forth, back and forth. Obviously, there's
a cash difference here.
The whole thing I'm concerned with -- I would like to -- making
you whole is only a small part of it. Providing the service without
interruption that's been there forever to some of the most needy
citizens is something I hate to see go away.
Is there a possibility that maybe we could come up with
something whereby we, in the interim of putting this contract out
again, we hire them at a rate that's amenable as far as keeping even
with the whole thing?
If you're the only provider, you come back and you go ahead and
you quote it so that the thing will cover costs and maybe make up
some of the loss that you've been taking, and maybe we can come up
with an interim contract to be able to keep them into place until we get
the RF --
MS. COREY: That doesn't address the issue of the rate that is
being paid, because the pay -- the rate is set by the state for Medicaid
patients. And it doesn't -- it doesn't really address that because the rate
is set, and there's -- it would have to go back to -- which is why we
haven't done this yet. One, we've been working on trying to get this
part taken care of now for almost six months. I started coming here in
Page 249
June 14, 2005
December.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Here's what bothers me --
MS. COREY: ATC is not going to breach the contract. We will
finish out the contract. If we have to, we'll hire Mr. Tejerina's drivers
and do the best we can. We'll probably lose a lot of service, but we're
not going to lose the service entirely. A TC doesn't operate that way.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, what I've heard today is that even
if we were to give you this amount of money, the $300,000 that you're
apparently asking for, that merely covers costs that have already been
incurred and doesn't do anything to assure the operation for the
remainder of the fiscal year.
MS. COREY: It's actually a combination of things. The
insurance is forward money. He's up to date on his insurance
payments, so it's not repaying him. It's not paying back any money he
has. It's also paying forward on his insurance, which helps him
become solvent. He is still receiving all the money that he is
contracted by A TC. His contract is still -- we're still honoring -- we're
paying everything Medicaid gives us, with the exception of the
two- fifty management fee.
That is not what we're asking for here. We're not asking for the
two- fifty management fee. Weare asking for assistance on the
increase -- the outrageous increase on the insurance and the
unexpected increase in the fuel and maintenance.
We do admit that there's a culpability. And I've said it before,
A TC is not going to abandon this contract. We're going to see through
it -- see it through to the end of September. And if we -- if Mr.
Tejerina bails -- which is his right because he's the one who's losing
the money. Ifhe bails and doesn't continue the contract, then ACT
will come in and take over the operations.
I don't know how we'll do it, but we'll do it. We'll get help from
-- we're going to lose -- A TC is definitely losing money in this. Don't
-- please don't think that we're going to come out of this unscathed.
Page 250
June 14, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think we've got the point. I think we
understand everybody's losing money.
MS. COREY: Everybody's losing money.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But we think we understand why they're
losing money. We don't need to go over that any more.
MS. COREY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What we need to do is get a solution.
County Manager?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, just so I've heard -- what I've heard
from the podium and the dialogue -- and let's talk about insurance for
a second.
There was -- there was a statement made on the record that
basically the insurance rate has doubled over the last year. It was 125,
and now it's 250, okay, and yet there's a thing in here that talks about
$187,000. So that doesn't cover a difference of doubling, okay?
So -- and then you've already paid $75,000 against that
insurance. So if you're talking about the increase, which is 125,000,
you've already put 75 against it, that leaves you $50,000 to cover this
unexpected increase in insurance, based on what was just said from
the podium. That's what was said.
Then you've got the $121,000 in maintenance that's out there. So
outstanding, unanticipated, best I could get from the dialogue that just
transpired, on top of the 75,000 that you've already given, there's an
outstanding unexpected of$171,100.82.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wasn't it 187 insurance, and we
subtracted 75 from that?
MR. MUDD: No, ma'am. What was said on that there,
Commissioner Coyle asked a question -- or somebody asked on the
dais asked, what was your insurance rate last year, and it was stated it
was around $125,000 and it's doubled, so it's at 250, okay.
So if you were just talking about the delta between what should
have been budgeted, 125,000 by the contractor or the sub -- so it's
Page 251
June 14, 2005
increased $125,000 that's unexpected. If you've already paid 75 of
that unexpected, there's only $50,000 that's languishing as far as that
unexpected increase. That what I heard.
MS. TEJERINA: Commissioner, that's what I was trying to do,
and I'm sure Diane and Gabe can figure that out really quick. So in
the shortfall that we're talking about, you already helped out with, you
know, some amount, so that needs to be subtracted so that somebody
here needs to say today, what is the amount of money that it would
take to finish out this contract in a good way.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. What is the amount of
money --
MS. TEJERINA: What is the amount of money? The number--
this is the number guy, and Diane has reviewed it, and A TC has
reviewed it. Somebody needs to come up with an amount, a final
amount, and we will not -- we are not -- I've been in this community
too long for me to walk out on anything, and we are more than happy
to finish out this contract if you help us out with that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Diane?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MS. FLAGG: Commissioners, if I could make a
recommendation that, as county manager stated, if we just take the
delta of the insurance for 50,000 and the unanticipated fleet for 121,
which equals the total of 1 71, and then A TC and Caring for Kids will
have to work out the rest.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So 171,000?
MS. FLAGG: Total.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion for that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that takes us through what period of
time?
MS. FLAGG: Through the end of the contract.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: February; is that correct?
Page 252
June 14, 2005
MS. FLAGG: September 30.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: September 30.
MS. FLAGG: Right. The new contract is going out --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So that takes you three more months?
MS. FLAGG: Four, actually.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's July, August, and September?
MS. FLAGG: Well, it includes June.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, it does include June, okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioners, just for the record. Jeff
Klatzkow, county attorney's office. There is a significant issue as to
whether or not our primary provider is in substantial breach of this
contract, all right.
And my understanding is that we're holding half a million dollar
bond for their performance on this. And whether or not this board
wishes to do an accommodation to continue this towards the end is the
board's prerogative, but I don't see any waiver of any potential breach
of contract that we might have against the primary provider here.
They're the ones who came to us and said, we can give you this
service, all right? They haven't done so.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now does that mean we have
recourse through other actions?
MR. KLATZKOW: We very well may, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. And if we were to grant this
amount of money, does that prejudice that recourse in any way?
MR. KLATZKOW: Which is why I'm here saying, I do not want
to be considered we have. We're not performing the contract here.
We're not waiving any potential breach. We're in a situation that we're
put into by the primary provider here because they failed to live up to
the terms of their agreement, all right. In order to provide the service,
this board may have to step in, but that does not cure their breach.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Does that have to be included in
the motion?
Page 253
June 14, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It should be.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think it should be.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then I include all that language
in the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And my second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we're talking about $171,000 for
right now?
MS. FLAGG: Correct.
MR. MUDD: An additional $171,000.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in flavor, 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.
Thank you very much. And by the way, I do appreciate the fact
that people are willing to stand up and do something even if they're
losing money.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boy, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I do appreciate that attitude. Thank you
very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many people would actually
do that in this community?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's about it right there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, that's right.
Item #10D
Page 254
June 14, 2005
APPROVAL OF TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY "A"
GRANT APPLICATIONS FROM THE CITY OF NAPLES, CITY
OF MARCO ISLAND, COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION,
PELICAN BAY SERVICES DISTRICT AND THE COLLIER
COUNTY TOURISM DEPARTMENT FOR BEACH
RENOURISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND BEACH PARK
FACILITIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 IN THE TOTAL
AMOUNT OF $3.508.775 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Item 1 OF. It's a --
to recommend approval of the tourist development category A grant
applications from the City of Naples, City of Marco Island, Collier
County Environmental Services, Collier County Parks and Recreation,
Pelican Bay Services District, and the Collier County tourism
development for beach renourishment and maintenance and beach
park facilities for fiscal year 2006 in the total amount $3,508,775, and
Mr. Jack Wert, your director of tourism, will present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
Good work, Jack.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have--
MR. WERT: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- a motion. Don't say anything.
MR. MUDD: Don't say anything.
MR. WERT: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion for approval by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
Page 255
June 14, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MR. WERT: Thank you, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Your speech was so convincing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It was.
MR. MUDD: And for the record, this particular Item has gone in
front of the Coastal Advisory Committee, it has gone before the
Tourism Development Council --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: TDC.
Item #10G
ACCEPTANCE OF 625.28 ACRES FROM THE SOUTH FLORIDA
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AS PARTIAL
SETTLEMENT OF COMMITMENTS MADE BY IT AND THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT
TRUST FUND OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA TO THE COLLIER
COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS UNDER
AGREEMENT DATED OCTOBER 8~ 2003 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: -- TDC, it's gone through the P ARAB, the Parks
and Rec. Advisory Board. And the reason it was on the regular
agenda is because of the amount of the total, but this is pretty much
their entire FY -2006 approved budgeted amount that they had in that
process.
This brings us to Item -- good job, Jack.
Page 256
June 14, 2005
Brings us to the next Item, which is lOG, which used to be 16E2,
and it is a recommendation to accept 625.28 acres from the South
Florida Water Management District as partial settlement of
commitments made by it and the Board of Trustees of the Internal
Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida to the Collier County
Board of Commissioners under agreement dated October 8th, 2003.
Commissioner Coletta requested that this be moved to the regular
agenda. Mr. Chuck Carrington, your real estate -- your director over
real estate, will present. The reason --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's find out why Commissioner Coletta
pulled it and see what we need to do with it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And that's Item 16E2?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep.
MR. MUDD: This is the -- this is the land for ATVs.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right, yes. I did pull it for a
very good reason. I wouldn't say this is bad news. This is basically
good news that we're going forward to -- our water management's
going forward to fulfill at least a part of the obligation it made back
when this commission approved the turning over of the roads and the
bridges in the south block, and I'd like to briefly have you give us a
description of what this is all about, if you would, for our listening
audience. I just couldn't let this pass on the consent agenda.
MR. CARRINGTON: Okay. Good evening. For the record, my
name is Chuck Carrington. I'm real estate services manager. And
with me today to answer any questions that you -- that you may have,
I have Ananta Nath and Tim Howard of South Florida Water
Management District here today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Chuck, excuse me here a minute.
MR. CARRINGTON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is an obligation by South Florida
Water Management to provide a square mile of property --
Page 257
June 14, 2005
MR. MUDD: More or less.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- more or less, to be used for
recreational vehicles, all-terrain vehicles, whatever, to replace the area
that was previously used at Bad Luck Prairie, and that's what it's all
about.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think he could have said it
faster.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't think so. He was going to get two
people up here to talk about it.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So, Chuck, that's what it's about.
Commissioner Coletta's been fighting for that for a long time. He's
happy about it.
Now, does anybody have a motion to approve this thing?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I don't want you to approve the
acceptance of the particular parcel. What I want you to do is direct
staff to come back with an agreement to accept the particular issue so
that we have a formal agreement between the South Florida Water
Management District and the partners receiving this particular
property, because it's not going to become available until 2008.
We've -- but I want to make sure it's okay with the board to start
staff work on this particular Item with Big Cypress Basin and the
South Florida Water Management District.
And the reason I'm so careful about this is we have a lawsuit out
there by two people off of Miller Boulevard, okay, and there's some --
and there's some issues there that the South Florida Water
Management District has not come forward with, and I don't want -- I
don't want your acceptance of this particular property to interfere with
that particular proceeding that's transpiring with the county attorney's
office and those two folks involved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But this Item says that you want
us to accept it.
Page 258
June 14, 2005
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So you're saying you don't want us to
accept the staffs recommendation?
MR. MUDD: Sir, what I want you to do is give staff direction to
work on this, this potential agreement as acceptable to the board, and
to work out a formal agreement whereby we can accept it at a later
date.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's where we were trying
to get to, and I make that motion that we direct staff to go back and get
the formal agreement that we -- so we can work on this at a later date.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Coletta and 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: And all opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's a little inpatient. You'll have to
forgive him.
MR. CARRINGTON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You did a good job. Thank you
so much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I just don't like repetition. Okay.
Item #10H
Page 259
June 14, 2005
AN APPLICATION FOR P ARTICIP A TION IN THE ADVANCED
BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT PROGRAM
BY NAPLES DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING CENTER, LTD. FOR
TWO (2) SITE LOCATIONS - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to Item 10H, which
was old 16A17, and this is a recommendation to approve an
application for participation in the advanced broadband infrastructure
investment program by Naples Diagnostic Imaging Center, Limited,
for two site locations, and this was asked to be brought on the regular
agenda by Commissioner Henning.
And Ms. Amy Patterson, our Impact Fee Coordinator, will
present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, this is all yours.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Ms. Patterson, the request is for $50,000 for two facilities. Now,
on the backup material from the EDC, it states that their cost of the
infrastructure is 30,000.
MS. PATTERSON: Correct. If I can provide an explanation on
that. What happened, we, generally speaking, when we're approving
these applications, it's a multi-step process, and so the applicants are
entitled to make a request for the maximum funding of $25,000 per
site, which gives you the total of $50,000, so it would be $25,000 per
site, but we don't actually payout anything until the invoices come in
showing what they've spent on the broadband.
Now, what's unusual in this case is that Sprint had provided an
estimate for some different things here totaling $30,000 as an estimate.
It's not an actual bill and it's not an actual amount that is requesting to
be paid.
So I realize that it appears inconsistent. And what we've
discussed with the clerk, and also with EDC, is from this point, I don't
Page 260
June 14, 2005
think in my executive summary that I made it clear that the maximum
incentive award per site is $25,000 paid out over three years, but if the
bills only came in for $8,000, that's all they'll receive.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The final question -- I
think that's a very sufficient explanation -- is this for putting in
infrastructure, or is this using -- the use of the broadband?
MS. PATTERSON: Only -- and also the other confusion with
Sprint's estimate is they include the service. We do not pay for the
service. We only pay for the infrastructure to be put in, and any
enabling equipment that's required. The service is not paid for by the
broadband infrastructure program.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, 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 passes unanimously.
Thank you very much, Amy.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's the last Item on our agenda, I
believe, isn't it?
Page 261
June 14, 2005
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to public comment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, yes, okay.
MS. FILSON: Yes, Commissioner. I have two public comment
speakers. The first is Kenneth Thompson.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Three minutes.
MR. THOMPSON: I'm Kenneth Thompson. I live at Becca --
3128 Becca Avenue. And, you know, I want you people to try to help
me stop this guy. He's down here working. He don't have no -- he's
from northern Minnesota. He doesn't have no license and no -- the
tags on his truck is old, and everything he's got is expired, and he's
down here working without a contractor's license.
He's working here without pulling any permits. And contractor
license, they saying he's all right. But, man, he has put in everything
you can imagine. The things all around the swimming pool, and he's
got a big light right over the outside of the door.
And he's over apologizing to me and my wife for all the hard
times that we have gone through with the lights and the people that's
been in there. It won't happen again.
And he doesn't own a damn thing over there. Excuse me. He
doesn't own nothing over there. It belongs to David Steinberg. And
his name is Gregory Jackson. And it's northern Minnesota. And I
would -- I'm asking you, please, I'm up and down all night long, and I
open the front door, I'm getting hit with a great big seal beam light
right in my face, and I can't take it no more.
It's about time you do something with the place. I mean, I'll go
along anybody -- anybody, but he just keep right on getting in -- and
today he's got a red box trailer in the driveway. Ms. Arnold pushes
Page 262
June 14, 2005
him out. Tomorrow he's got a white box trailer. The next day he's got
a flat trailer, and he's over here on lot one through five cutting down
the man's mangrove trees.
So I called DEP. I gone to everybody in this county to get him
stopped, so he took off back to Minnesota, but he'll be back.
But I need you to try to help me to get that light put out. I mean,
I offered to pay -- I didn't care what it cost me, $1,000 a light, I don't
care. But the lights is illegal. The doors swing in. That's wrong. The
doors has to swing out.
And the 9th of -- 26th (sic) of '04 it caught afire, like I told you
before, and that was a -- he came in as a contractor, and I don't know
where these people are -- Mrs. Arnold, she's a nice lady, and she's not
squeezing these people hard enough to get the money out of them.
Boy, if I worked for them, I'd squeeze them so hard they'd wish
they'd seen -- I'd take every dollar they got for the things they're
doing.
I was praying that that hurricane the other day would hit right in
the middle of Naples. I would show you the damn scabs that you got
out here working in Naples. I was hoping and praying it would hit
there.
All it did was kill a man out in front of my house. I kept getting
the surf with the ax (sic) facing up. Four o'clock in the morning, he's
a -drowning, and I couldn't get him out of the water.
But please, if you don't do nothing the rest of the day, buy me a
hammer or get me something and give me the authority to take the
light out. That's all I ask you to do. The light's got to go.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you have Michelle --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'm going to go back out and check
that light.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: It seems to be the issue.
MR. THOMPSON: Don't come out there and check it unless you
Page 263
June 14, 2005
got something to take it out with, now, 'cause -- I'm headed for another
bad operation here and they've got to take this battery out and channel
it over -- all the way over here under my rib cage. I don't think I can
handle any more.
I'm threatening to shoot myself, but I ain't -- I'm not worth a
whole bullet. I'll have to split one with somebody.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I might take you up on that, Mr.
Thompson. It's been a long day for me, too.
MR. THOMPSON: No, it's just all the damn time. And I got an
idiot next door, he's turned funny on me, you know. And I'm telling
you, I live in a neighborhood of this --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll tell you what, Mr. Thompson --
MR. THOMPSON: Save my life--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Leave it with the county manager, and
we'll see what we can do about it, okay?
MR. THOMPSON: Yeah. But just don't -- yeah, don't let it keep
on burning. And this is the man that owns it, and he's up in South
Carolina screwing everybody, just like he did in N aples. You know
the Steinbergs.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. We got the point.
MR. THOMPSON: Okay. And the lights is out on Bayshore
Drive, and I need to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could you come back on the
28th and let us know how it turned out?
MR. THOMPSON: Yeah. I don't know how it's going to turn
out, but I know if I have to go to jail, I'm willing to go, because they
won't get no cherry, I'll tell you that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Mr. Thompson, thank you very
much.
MR. THOMPSON: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Be sure and leave that information with
the county manager.
Page 264
June 14, 2005
MR. THOMPSON: I done told him.
MR. MUDD: I got it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Manager's got it. Okay.
Very good.
Who's the next speaker?
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Rudolfo -- and I'll let you
pronounce your last name.
MR. PUMARIEGA: Don't feel bad. Sometimes I got two of
them myself.
For the record, my name is Rudolfo Pumariega. That's spelled,
P-U-M-A-R-I-E-G-A, and I represent LULAC, that's L-U-L-A-C
(sic), which stands for the United Latin America Citizens.
At this time I would like to thank the commission to let me speak
in front of you guys. The purpose I'm present here today is not only to
introduce you to LULAC, but also to invite you to the annual meeting
nationwide in Kansas City in Little Rock, Arkansas.
LULAC is the most respectful Latino organization in the United
States, and we will be celebrating our 76th anniversary. I think at the
beginning, this morning, I think the clerk passed this around, with the
-- I don't want go through all the information.
I'll just to go over it, and I hope you look at them, because
LULAC, like I say, is the most respectable organization in the United
States. It's been existing for 76 years.
We can expect to hear from a presidential candidate, also from
secretaries -- the cabinet, members of the Congress, local electors, and
most of this is about 10,000 representatives all over the United States,
we going to be there.
We would like to invite you to be there, you know, promoting the
county. Also, at the same time, we are going to try and be on the list
-- because I was, last month, I was assigned by the state convention in
Clearwater, Florida, to look for the city for the next convention, and
I'm going to try hard as hell to be here in this city, in this county.
Page 265
June 14, 2005
So we would like to see if it's possible you guys can do some
effort to expose this county to the rest of the United States right there
at this convention. I think it would be advantage to the county to be
there.
Tomorrow I'm going to be in front of the city councilmen, too,
doing the same proposal. And like I say, I thank you again for this
opportunity, and I hope you take advantage of this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Mr. Pumariega.
MR. PUMARIEGA: Don't feel bad.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll get it right sooner or later.
MR. PUMARIEGA: That's all right. Don't feel bad. Thank you
very much for your opportunity, okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I have two Items. First Item is a
letter that was written to the chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why are we off center here?
MR. MUDD: It's been doing that all day today, and we've had
people trying to adjust it. It moves slowly and it's basically back here,
and we'll get it resolved.
Basically it's a letter from -- it's reference a developer
contribution between Collier County and Gateway Shoppes, II, LLC,
Rimar, Inc., and WCI Communities, Inc.
Dear Chairman Coyle, at the May 10th, 2005, Board of County
Commissioners meeting you directed the county attorney's office to
provide a legal opinion on whether or not Gateway Shoppes, II, LLC,
Page 266
June 14, 2005
Rimar, Inc., and WCI Communities, Inc., could construct the
necessary improvements to Collier Boulevard to provide capacity to
the respective projects.
You stated that if the county attorney opined -- opinion did not
adequately address the construction of the improvement and at the
same time assure those who constructed the improvements that they
could utilize the improvements, you would consider a new developer's
contribution agreement (DCA) addressing these issues as long as the
county was not responsible for constructing the improvements.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're not going to read this whole
thing, are you, Jim?
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: They're basically asking if the board would direct
staff to come up with a new DCA whereby they would construct the
improvements and be able to use the capacity that those improvements
represent so that they could build their projects.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let me --let me try to summarize
the issue. At that meeting I think we -- I said that I wasn't going to get
involved in building the facilities, that if they wanted to do it
themselves, they had the right to do so under law.
The county attorney has since opined that that is correct, they
have the right to do that under the law. The only thing they -- they are
unsure of is whether or not the capacity that they build will be
reserved for their use.
And so they are coming to us to ask us to give the staff guidance
to assure them that they can use the capacity if they spend their own
money to build it, which is obviously the most honest thing to do.
So the question before you is, there is no -- no decision to be
made by us about whether they do it or not. They have the right to do
it, and they're going to do it. And the only thing that we have to
decide is, if they develop the road enhancements, will we make sure
Page 267
June 14, 2005
that the capacity is reserved for their use? And that's the only question
before the commission, as I understand it. Right?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So I don't know how you can
refuse to do that. I mean, who would you -- who would you let use
the capacity if you didn't let the people who built it? So there we are.
What would you like to do? Who had their buttons pushed first?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I agree. I mean, if they build
the road, then they should have the capacity. My biggest concern is
that they -- they shouldn't open the doors until the road is built.
My biggest concern is, if they open the doors -- and what we're
talking about here is the Super Wal-Mart, we know the crush of traffic
that comes with that. If they open their doors before the road is built,
I'm afraid that it -- it won't operate. I have no problem reserving
capacity on the road as long as they, you know, have the road built
before they open their doors.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Jeff?
MR. MUDD: Sir, you need to capture this stuff in a DCA.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, JeffKlatzkow, county attorney's
office. The best way to do this, for both the county and the
developers, is to memorialize it in an agreement form. And if the
board can give us direction as to exactly what the board wishes done,
it would make my job, certainly, a lot easier.
I understand that we don't want them to open until the road is
substantially complete?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, it's not substantially; complete,
complete.
MR. KLATZKOW: Absolutely complete?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. KLATZKOW: Construction must take place offseason, I
Page 268
June 14, 2005
take it?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
MR. KLATZKOW: I take it that they are to build the entire
road, bear all costs whatsoever, even if they're in a cost overrun, it's
their responsibility?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep.
MR. KLA TZKOW: And we're going to need some sort of date
certain that they need to commence this project. I believe Nick can
help with that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, I think we need to hear from the
petitioner on that issue with respect to schedules. I would ask one
question. If we were going to build the road, would we limit the
construction to off season?
MR. FEDER: Yes, Commissioner. What we brought to you
before, we would not start work until after season, and that is what we
would impose upon them as well. Because it's not a long project, and
it should be able to be done, as they wanted it, for opening by starting
after April.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. How can we reserve this capacity
and not have other PUDs or developments that are going to come in
shortly and say, by the way, we think there's capacity left?
MR. FEDER: Right now in your checkbook, there is not
capacity available to allow any more development.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. FEDER: In this case what we are saying is you either wait
for the state, because three of the four are actually state owned in this
case, or you wait for the county, or you do it yourself. In this case
they're ready to do it themselves.
What they're saying though is, if they're going to do it, they want
to make sure somebody else doesn't come in front of them and use up
that capacity that they're providing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, we should be able to do that,
Page 269
June 14, 2005
right?
MR. FEDER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because right now there's nobody
else out there that can --
MR. FEDER: Nobody else can be approved. And until they
finished it, if they -- as they're designing it right now, there will be
some additional capacity beyond what they demand, we can then open
that up as appropriate, again, until our checkbook says we have no
more capacity. And we are working towards a long-term solution
with the state.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Yes, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This doesn't prohibit them from
starting construction to coincide with the finishing of the road though?
MR. FEDER: No. They can do their own construction. They
just can't get a Certificate of Occupancy until they have finished
construction of the road segment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You okay?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Physically?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I've never seen you reluctant to talk
before.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know. I'm not reluctant. I don't want to
-- we're okay with starting construction, I guess, April 1 st, and
obviously no COs until -- until the road is -- I don't want to say
actually complete, open for use, because there's going to be some
things that -- you know, plantings and things like that. You just want
the travel lanes open; is that correct, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
MR. FEDER: That definition -- and I'm sorry to interrupt. That
definition is what we said to you first, which is substantial completion,
and typically we'd be fine with that, because then the lanes are open to
travel. There may be some punch list Items, a sign or a curb or
something.
Page 270
June 14, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. All right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine with us.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are there any other questions?
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Anybody have a motion?
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. FEDER: I need to add just a couple of other things, very
quickly. One you touched upon, I'd like to finalize that before you
act. The other is that we'd want a letter of credit. Basically if they
come forward and they don't build the road, that gives us an
opportunity -- we talked about dates. First of all, we wouldn't want
any construction to start before April 1 st.
MR. MUDD: Hey, Norman, let me interrupt for a second.
Commissioner, all I need is direction to come back to the next
board meeting with a DCA that --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, but I think it's nice that we know
what the parameters are.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we're not going to make a motion to
approve this. We're just going to ask, you know --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. FEDER: Yeah. I wanted to lay them on the table and see if
we've got general concurrence all the way around.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. FEDER: And I'll try to be brief. But basically that, in fact,
they are paying their impact fees, that's how we're reserving the 50
percent. If they don't get their permits by April 1 st to start
construction, they can then leave, but what they leave behind,
payment at their cost with no reimbursement is the design, and that is
to county standards and concurrence. Then they'd get their impact
Page 271
June 14, 2005
fees reimbursed, and that's the end of that agreement.
If they then get their permits or start to build but they walk away
from the construction -- that's why we want the surety bond -- then the
county could come in and complete the project.
So those are the other things we want to add to it. And we also
want to say that as of October of '06, October of next year, if we're not
substantially under construction, the county can decide to terminate
this agreement because there may be others that want to come through
with the process at that time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're adding a lot of conditions there
that are going to have to be -- you're going to have to talk to --
MR. FEDER: All of it's spelled out in the DCA, and I believe
we've discussed all of them already with the applicant.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Very well. Is the -- what's the sense of
the board? Have we got three nods here to do this?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It looks like you've got three nods
to proceed with negotiating an agreement similar to the one that you
just described.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Just before Mr. Yovanovich leaves,
you're asking for this DCA to come in front of the board on the 28th of
June, okay. That means we've got to move fast if you're going to get
this agreement done, so --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll be all over it.
MR. MUDD: I hope you answer your phone calls. Thank you
very much. Okay.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I only have one more Item, and it's
an advertisement, and it has to do with the Gordon River Water
Quality Park, and for those folks that are listening -- and that's the
park that's on the 50 acres north of Golden Gate Parkway at
Goodlette-Frank Road that's right by the bank -- in back of the bank.
This workshop is a public workshop, and it's going to be held on
Page 272
June 14, 2005
June 27th at 4:30 p.m. at the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, and I
invite the public to come, look at the project, give us input so that we
get all the things that you're looking for into this water quality park
down so you don't get something that you don't want and you can say
nobody informed me, so--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What's the date again?
MR. MUDD: 27 June at 4:30 p.m. at the Conservancy. And
we'll have the advertisement in the paper. It's out there right now, but
I just wanted to make sure that everybody's aware of it. It is a good
news project for the community, and I'd ask folks to come out for that.
That's all I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Thank you very much.
County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Yeah, just one thing. I'm putting
you on notice of my request for a closed session at the next meeting, a
very short one. It's in regard to a lawsuit that the county has against
Lexington Insurance Company, who was the insurer for a company
known as AEC, upon whom we, county attorney counsel, won a
judgment against.
The insurance company has made a settlement offer relative to
their client, and so we, of course, ethically have to bring it to the
board. We'd like the opportunity to discuss it very briefly in closed
session and then bring it out for board direction, and that's all I have to
say.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A couple cycles ofLDCs ago,
and it might have been -- no, it was two cycles ago -- we were asked
to allow the county staff to -- anybody wants to split five acres in
Golden Gate Estates to come to community development. Normal
procedures, they just went to the property appraiser.
And we were told that the reason for that is we wanted to know
where the driveway connections are going to be in Golden Gate
Page 273
June 14, 2005
Estates, and Mr. Norman Feder's shaking his hands -- head.
The e-mail I received today states what they have to do. What
staff is asking them to do is actually create a subdivision, which we
were told it was going to be a simple process. Now, creating a
subdivision is not a simple process.
And I just want to say, in the Golden Gate Estates master plan,
which is in the comprehensive plan -- and this language has always
been there -- single-family residential development may allow, within
Golden Gate Estates mixed-use districts, to the maximum density of
one unit per 2.24 -- .25 gross acres, unless a lot is considered a legal
nonconforming lot of record.
And it always has been allowed to split five acres. And I feel
that -- I mean, the reason I supported it was a simple process, and it
appears like it's not a simple process anymore.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Henning, can I make a
statement on that? I believe that's the e-mail involving Coastal
Construction. That lot was a seven-acre lot, had already been
subdivided. According to state statute and our LDC, if it's divided
again to create two or more lots -- and in this case it would be creating
two or more lots, it actually would be creating three lots -- you are
forced to do a subdivision.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The original platting of Golden
Gate Estates, they were all five-acre lots. They allowed you to
actually take them down to acre and a quarter. The Golden Gate
master plan stopped that.
MR. SCHMITT: I understand.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it's saying, our master -- or
our comprehensive plan says two and a quarter. So obviously what
happened is, is they took it from five acres to seven and a half.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It went back down to five acres,
and now you're saying they can't go back down to two and a half
Page 274
June 14, 2005
acres?
MR. SCHMITT: The rule is that when they -- when they
subdivide -- and this would be a subdivision from the original seven
acres that existed prior to that law going into effect, that when they
now subdivide and, in essence, create three lots, it necessitates a
platting.
I got the e-mail. I'm still looking into it. I'm talking to the
county attorney as well to find out what are the rules and does the rule
apply. I fully understand if it's a five-acre lot, they have every right to
split it. There's no requirement for any type of platting and creating a
subdivision.
Anything beyond a two-lot split requires a platting. And in this
case, it was deemed by my engineering director that the three lots --
this was creating three lots out of what previously existed as seven and
a half acres. And I'm still trying to find out from a legal perspective. I
will sort this out.
If you want us to come back and explain this at a future board, I
will do that, if you want to address this issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I--
MR. SCHMITT: Or I'll just get with you personally and send
you an e-mail to resolve it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that's sufficient.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: By the way, in the land
development code, before it went to this thing, it always explained that
conforming lots were two and a quarter acres.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I can't find it. And I
understand there are a lot of things that were taken out of there
unintentionally.
MR. SCHMITT: Any -- when the LDC was recodified, anything
that was in the existing code that may have been dropped
Page 275
June 14, 2005
inadvertently, you still revert back to the previous guidance. And
we're coming back to address this whole lot split issue anyways in
regards to the process, just as you said, to notify at least the zoning
staff where a driveway enters, but more important, in a lot split, that
they do not create a nonconforming structure.
You recall the incident we had where a purchaser purchased a
piece of property, then all of a sudden his house was nonconforming
because it was close to the lot line, and we're trying to prevent those
kind of things from happening. So there will be more to come in
dealing with lot splits. We're looking at that next cycle. But not to
change the requirement. You're exactly right, they can split. If it's a
five-acre lot, they have every right to split that lot.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you just set up a meeting with
Commissioner Henning and get these answers?
MR. SCHMITT: I will do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. SCHMITT: I need to look into the details.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Anything else, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Today we approved a -- I
think it was a change order for one of the contractors --
MR. MUDD: 16A19, Tomasello.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- that I feel did not live up to
his commitment. I'm taking the county manager's advice and not
saying too much about that. But I think that, Commissioner Coyle,
just like the contractor that we had here, we did our best to hold them
accountable, and I think on this contractor, we need to hold that
consulting company accountable.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think I know who you're talking about,
and I agree with you 100 percent. We definitely do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all I have, folks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You only whet my appetite.
Page 276
June 14, 2005
I'd like to know more about that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're not going to tell you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know that. I can see that. And
you're in an open meeting, you can.
I just wanted to kind of bring you up to date on a little area in
East Naples that I thought you might find to be interesting. It's going
to be challenging for all of us, and it's going to be kind of fun, I think,
because we're going to have a real opportunity to shape what it's going
to look like right from the start, and that's the area that we've just been
talking about where they're going to widen the road.
Right now there are other places that have been talked of and had
contracts on land to buy. Lowe's, by the way, is on hold. They want to
come in there, but there's no capacity on the road. Target would like to
come in; there's no capacity on the road. We've also turned away
somebody who wanted to maximize his C-2 property, because there's
no capacity.
There's another place that was called Reflection Lakes that has
already put all of their -- all of their infrastructure in. They've had to
stop, again, because there's no capacity on the road, and they've
returned all of the down payments on all of the lands because there is
no capacity on the road.
We're having a problem there, but we're also looking for
solutions. That's the good news. We're trying to find away . We've
just had to continually turn people away right and left and -- but we're
trying to find solutions.
I have to tell you that our transportation department -- and it's
kind of hard to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but we're working
hard. And so I just wanted you to know a lot of these things are going
to be coming back before you. But I want to give our guys in
transportation a whole heck of a lot of credit for working on this so
diligently. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta has a question.
Page 277
June 14, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I just wanted to comment.
Checkbook concurrency's working.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It sure it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's exactly what you're seeing
here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's working fine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's exactly what you're seeing.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just in time to be undermined by the
growth management plan.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Also, too, if I may add to that, I
understand that Greenwood, the one Habitat for Humanity project, is
also on hold because of --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know about that, but the one
that is right at that comer, the 288, they're not on hold. They're
already approved.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But the thing is, is it's working
and we're --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is not a gab session.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The capacity's not there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, it is. This is the only time we
can talk.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You know, this is not a gab session.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's the only time we can talk.
What you going to do with that thing?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm going to hit you in the head with it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, do you have anything?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What do you give him for
impatience?
Page 278
June 14, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Florida Association of Counties,
next week, their annual meeting. I know I'm planning to go, I know
Commissioner Halas is planning to go, and I hope maybe for a day or
two we can get everybody else down there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Somebody's got to stay here and
do business.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Up there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Up there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Up there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're right, it is up there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Tampa.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much. That's
all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Anything else?
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I'd just like to say that our
condolences go out to the Bonnie McKenzie family, and our prayers
are with her and her family.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Well, one thing, ladies and gentlemen, I participated in a
workshop with the city council on Monday morning, and in view of
the summer recess that's coming up for them and for us, they have
asked for a sense of the commission with respect to our determination
to take action to oppose the implementation of the FEMA maps,
FEMA flood maps.
And I told them I would ask you to get an idea as to whether or
not you still felt that our position is that we would go forward to
oppose the implementation of these maps but to continue talking with
FEMA to the extent possible.
Has anybody changed their mind? You still feel firm about this?
Yes, Commissioner Coletta?
Page 279
June 14, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I tell you what I'd like to do is
have that brought back for a regular Item at the beginning of the
meeting. I'm sure with about 10 minutes of discussion we can come
up with a firm plan that will meet the objectives.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I don't think they're asking for a
plan. They just -- they just don't want to go off by themselves in a
meeting sometime this summer that they might not have and not be
able to talk with us about it. They merely want to know, are we still
committed to opposing these maps? And I think that's all they want to
know.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, we're committed to opposing
it, but I'm not sure what our options are if they're going to follow
through and listen to us. That's the problem I think we have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I know. And the city council doesn't
want to know that. They just want to know if they can still count on
us to stand beside them and go forward and fight this thing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would say yes, for me anyway. I
don't know about my other commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, I feel that way. But I see
some reluctance on the legal staff.
MR. WEIGEL: Reluctance, no.
MR. KLATZKOW: Reluctance, no. In fact, we had scheduled
this Item to be discussed for the next meeting.
I want the opportunity to speak to you individually next week on
this. It's my understanding that we don't have the data yet. It hasn't
come in. But there is potential that when the data does come in, there
will be more people in flood zones because of that new data than are
going to be with the way the maps are now.
So that at the end of the day, we may have more people paying
more insurance by continuing this process.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are you saying that our data is
Page 280
June 14, 2005
giving them the ability to have more people in the flood zone, or the
data that FEMA's going to bring forth?
MR. KLATZKOW: Our data.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When you say our people, what are you
talking about, our people?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, let me -- the whole issue here was
to produce flood maps with the best available data that we had, okay?
We believe that the FEMA maps that were produced back in 1996
with whatever data they got from the South Florida Water
Management District, or whatever they used for them, weren't
accurate.
There were no -- there was -- there's no template at all for the
Golden Gate Estates in that process. We've gone out there and taken a
look at that. There are probably going to be areas out in the Golden
Gate Estates, okay, after all this is done where those folks -- some
folks out there might be in a flood zone, okay?
And when it's all said and done, there might be -- because of the
new maps coming out -- there might be 130 residences affected, most
of which are in the coastal zone. When our new maps come out, there
might be 350 people affected in addition, and it might be more than
that, but it's the best available data, and it -- it is reliable and we've
gone out of our way in order to make sure that it -- that it basically
portrays what's on the ground today and how it's impacted.
So what Mr. Klatzkow is alluding to is the fact that there might
be some more people, even with our maps, that are going to have to
pay flood insurance that don't pay flood insurance now. And I don't
believe the decision by this board in the past has been one where we're
looking out to try to figure out who's going to pay the least amount of
floor insurance. You wanted to have valid maps that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Based on the science.
MR. MUDD: -- so that whosever in a flood plain were paying
Page 281
June 14, 2005
flood insurance and they were being protected by that process, and I
believe that's what we're trying to do. But there might be a
consequence, an unintended consequence, where there are additional
people paying flood insurance, more so than what would come out
with the erroneous maps in our --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that wasn't my question.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You know, I've gotten answers to every
question I haven't asked. But the point is, are we committed to
assuring that we have flood maps that are based upon the most
accurate and up-to-date information we can get? And we will-- will
we oppose FEMA if they do not wish to accept our data?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's put it on next week's -- or
next meeting's agenda. I know what you're saying, but I don't want to
answer that question --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- for myself.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There is one comment I want to
make.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You can tell I'm affected.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was waiting for you to nod
your heads yes.
The process that we've been through to this point in time, in the
end there may be a need for some people to have flood insurance that
never had it before. Meanwhile, the process we've gone through has
saved the taxpayers of this county tens of millions of dollars in
premiums they haven't had to pay while we're going through the
process. Of course, we also put some of them in jeopardy.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I am likely to go back to the city
council and tell them proceed independently with their protest, take
the subset of the data that is for the City of Naples, and proceed
Page 282
June 14, 2005
independently with this rather than waiting for the county to decide
what it wants to do, and I think they'll stand a lot better chance of
solving their problem than if they stand around and wait for us to
make up our minds what we're going to do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And at the end of the day,
Commissioner, we might want to give them a monetary contribution
for their efforts, fighting efforts.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right, that's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But, you know, I want to see
how -- if we were to do any changes, how it would affect -- impact
other residents, but -- maybe that's the way to go.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Coyle, I need to make a
comment, so you can understand. In all the appeals in the past, the
federal government and FEMA has recognized the chairman of the
Board of County Commissioners as the CEO, elected official,
responsible for the unincorporated and incorporated areas in this
appeal.
If the city goes in a separate matter, they basically have lost that
-- all that other previous history that we've had, because everything
has been with -- through the chair, and then through Collier County.
Now, if the city goes alone, it pretty much is reinventing the
wheel. So there are some legal tangles there that have to be sorted out
as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's not really true. The City of
Brunswick, Georgia, did an independent proj ect --
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and they -- and as far as I recall, they
won their battle.
MR. SCHMITT: They did.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And so municipalities can, in fact, take
this issue up independently. And I think we have an obligation to
Page 283
June 14, 2005
decide where we're going with this thing and to get our contractor to
get the information to us as quickly as possible.
And I'm beginning to feel that we're never going to have a
complete set of data. And if the coastal data does, in fact, exist -- and
I'm not even convinced of that. But if it does, in fact, exist, why don't
the coastal communities just take this stuff and do it and quit waiting
for us, because I don't think we're going anywhere.
But that's -- I just wanted to ask a question, and I got my answer.
And so I'll talk with the city and tell them what I think my assessment
is, and they can decide what they want to do. If they would like to
talk with the county attorney, maybe the county attorney could give
them an assessment of where we are.
But I gather we're sort of reluctant to say whether or not we're
going forward or not.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, county attorney said, reluctant, no. But
we just wanted you to know that in pressing forward, whether it's in
federal court in a sidebar with FEMA and Atlanta or other places, that
there appears to be, from the data that's not finished yet, a trending
toward a potential that may be different than what you thought here to
this point.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's your big surprise, based
upon the report we've gotten from the state. I can recall sitting in a
meeting saying, when can you tell me, Mr. Consultant, when the data
will be favorable or unfavorable so we can make a decision as to
whether or not we pull the plug. And he said something, we'll know
about 90 days or so, and I think that was three years ago.
So I really don't have much confidence in the data we're getting
and where we're going with this thing, but there's no point in debating
that right now. It's counterproductive.
So I'm just out of this, okay? I'm going to go tell the city to take
it on themselves. They mayor may not accept my advice.
Okay. Anybody have anything else?
Page 284
June 14, 2005
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We are adjourned. Thank you
very much.
* * * * * Commissioner Halas moved, seconded by Commissioner
Coletta and carried unanimously, that the following Items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16Al
RESOLUTION 2005-219: PETITION AVESMT2004-AR5649 TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND
THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A PORTION OF THE DRAINAGE
AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENT AGREEMENT CONVEYED
TO COLLIER COUNTY BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENT AND
RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 2866, PAGES 2889
THROUGH 2904 AND ALL OF THE DRAINAGE AND
MAINTENANCE EASEMENT AGREEMENT CONVEYED TO
COLLIER COUNTY BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENT AND
RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 3357, PAGES 2709
THROUGH 2718, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, LOCATED IN THE VALENCIA LAKES
SUBDIVISION IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHP 48 SOUTH, RANGE
27 EAST
Item#16A2
RELEASE AND SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR THE
FOLLOWING CASES: FRANK L. AND LAURA S. OLSZEWSKI
2004-64; FRED P. AND NORMA J. KOWALKE 2004-37; HELEN
STORMER 2004-71 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
Page 285
June 14, 2005
SUMMARY
Item #16A3
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A TEN-YEAR COOPERATIVE GRANT
AGREEMENT WITH THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
FOR FUNDING HABITAT RESTORATION ON
CONSERVATION COLLIER PROPERTIES NOT TO EXCEED
$250,000 OVER A TEN-YEAR PERIOD - FUTURE PROJECTS
WILL BE BROUGHT BACK ANNUALLY TO THE BCC FOR
APPROV AL
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 2005-220: APPOINTING AND AUTHORIZING
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR OR THE
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR TO
EXECUTE PERMIT APPLICATIONS AND OTHER
DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DEPARTMENT PROJECTS - PERTAINING TO HABITAT
RESTORATION AND DEVELOPING PUBLIC ACCESS
Item #16A5
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "SUSSEX PLACE",
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY -
W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A6
Page 286
June 14, 2005
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "MEDITERRA PHASE
THREE EAST, UNIT TWO", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD
FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A7
AWARD BID #05-3808 FOR WATERWAYS MAINTENANCE TO
NAPLES DOCK AND MARINE SERVICES FOR AN ANNUAL
CONTRACT ESTIMATED AT $30,000 - TO INCLUDE THE
INSTALLATION OF PILINGS, LIGHTS AND SIGN
MAINTENANCE
Item #16A8
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "EDISON VILLAGE",
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY -
W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A9
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH ELSY
MORENO AND ALDEMAR SOLARTE FOR TWO PARCELS
TOTALING 2.73 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT
TO EXCEED $88,000 - BOTH PARCELS ARE LOCATED
WITHIN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES~ UNIT 65
Page 287
June 14, 2005
Item #16AI0
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH ASFA
SILL AND ALEKA SILL FOR 2.73 ACRES UNDER THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM,
AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $32,850 - LOCATED WITHIN
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES~ UNIT 53
Item #16All
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH GLORIA
GODDARD FOR 1.59 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT
TO EXCEED $30,850 - LOCATED WITHIN GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES~ UNIT 53
Item #16A12
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "ROYAL PALM GOLF
ESTATES REPLAT #3", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD
FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A13
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "FIDDLER'S CREEK
PHASE 5, AVIAMAR UNIT ONE", APPROVAL OF THE
STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT, AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE
PERFORMANCE SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Page 288
June 14, 2005
Item #16A14
A BUDGET AMENDMENT OF UP TO $300,000 IN FY05
BUDGET TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (TIF) FUNDS FOR
THE SERVICES OF A CONSULTANT TO ASSIST WITH THE
PREPARATION OF A REVISED IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER
PLAN (lAMP) AND A NEW RURAL LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE ZONING OVERLAY FOR THE IMMOKALEE URBAN
AREA - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A15
COUNTY STAFF TO ADMINISTRATIVLEY ISSUE
VEGET A TION REMOVAL AND SITE FILLING PERMITS AND
CERTAIN EXCAVATION PERMITS AS REQUIRED FOR LEL Y
RESORT (LEL Y RESORT PUD) LOCATED IN SECTIONS 21, 22,
27, 28, 33, AND 34, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST -
W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A16
A SEA TURTLE LICENSE PLATE GRANTS PROGRAM GRANT
AGREEMENT FROM THE CARIBBEAN CONSERVATION
CORPORATION FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DEPARTMENT'S SEA TURTLE PUBLIC AWARENESS
PROGRAM - FOR THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AND
INCLUDES FUNDING EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS
Item #16A17 - Moved to Item #10H
Item #16A18
Page 289
June 14, 2005
AN APPLICATION BY MOBILE INTERNET TECHNOLOGIES,
LLC FOR THE JOB CREATION INVESTMENT PROGRAM, THE
ADVANCED BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT
PROGRAM AND THE FEE PAYMENT ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A19
A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BUDGET AMENDMENT THAT
FUNDS THE COUNTY'S PORTION OF THE TOMASELLO
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. CHANGE ORDER NO.1 - AS
RELATED TO THE COST SHARING ARRANGEMENT WITH
THE DEVELOPER OF AVE MARIA UNIVERSITY
Item #16A20
RESOLUTION 2005-221: AMENDING THE COLLIER COUNTY
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FEE SCHEDULE OF
DEVELOPMENT-RELATED REVIEW AND PROCESSING FEES
AS PROVIDED FOR IN CODE OF LAWS SECTION 2-11 - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A21
REDEMPTION OF A DEVELOPER'S CASH BOND AND THE
TRANSFER OF FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $5967.50 FROM
GENERAL LEDGER REVENUE ACCOUNT 113 TO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND 131 - DUE TO NON-
COMPLIANCE RELATING TO THE SUBDIVISION KNOWN AS
TRE TERRA
Item #16Bl
Page 290
June 14, 2005
AWARD BID #05-3805-S FOR PREPARATION AND DELIVERY
OF TITLE COMMITMENTS AND REAL ESTATE CLOSING
SERVICES - ADDING TWO ADDITIONAL FIRMS:
ATTORNEY'S TITLE INSURANCE FUND, INC. AND GULF
VIEW TITLE~ LLC
Item # 16B2
A DONATION FROM WCI COMMUNITIES, INC. UP TO THE
AMOUNT OF $73,000 - FOR MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS ON
LIVINGSTON ROAD (V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD TO
IMMOKALEE ROAD) PROJECT #620717
Item # 16B3
AN INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, HENDRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
FOR CONTINUED USE OF INMATE LABOR IN ROAD
MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES
Item #16B4
AN ADOPT-A-ROAD AGREEMENT WITH CLUB CULTURAL
DOMINICANO "DOMINICAN CULTURE CLUB" - SIGNS
ALREADY EXIST
Item #16B5
THE ISSUANCE OF A RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) PERMIT
CREATING A DESIGNATED PARKING AREA WITHIN THE
Page 291
June 14, 2005
RIGHT-OF-WAY ON A SPECIFIC SEGMENT OF CAPRI
BOULEVARD - FOR RESTAURANT PARKING ON CAPRI
BOULEVARD
Item #16B6
RESOLUTION 2005-222: AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
226 AND THE LANDSCAPING INSTALLATION AND
MAINTENANCE HIGHWAY AGREEMENT WITH THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT)
WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA WHICH AUTHORIZES THE CHAIRMAN
TO EXPAND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE EXISTING US 41
NORTH PHASE I AND II AGREEMENT AND RESOLUTION
NO. 2001-226 TO INCLUDE US 41 NORTH PHASE III FROM
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD TO IMMOKALEE ROAD
Item #16B7
AWARD RFP #05-3798, IN THE AMOUNT OF $134,002 TO
TINDALE-OLIVER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR
CONSULTANT SERVICES FORA TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY
Item #16B8
RESOLUTION 2005- 223: AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION
BY GIFT OR PURCHASE 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 SIX-LANE EXPANSION OF
Page 292
June 14, 2005
GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD FROM PINE RIDGE ROAD TO
GOLDEN GATE P ARKW A Y AT AN ESTIMATED FISCAL
IMPACT OF $100~000~ PROJECT NO. 60005
Item #16B9
A WORK ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $618,829 TO D.N.
HIGGINS, INC. FOR THE TWIN LAKES INTERCONNECT
PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 510054) IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE GENERAL UNDERGROUND UTILITY CONTRACT NO.
#04-3535 - TO REPAIR THE EXISTING FAILING SYSTEM
WITHIN THE TWIN LAKES SUBDIVISION
Item #16BI0
EXPENDITURE OF $148,000 TO FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT
(FPL) FOR STREETLIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD FROM US 41 TO 1-75,
PROJECT NO. 66042B
Item #16Bll
AWARD BID #05-3686 GOLDEN GATE BEAUTIFICATION
MSTU/MSTD ROADWAY GROUNDS MAINTENANCE TO
ADVANCED LAWN & LANDSCAPING SERVICE, INC. WITH A
BASE AMOUNT OF $242,654.40 AND IRRIGATION BID
ALTERNATE OF $44J20 FOR A TOTAL OF $286~774.40
Item #16B12
A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR A TOTAL OF $73,300
REQUESTED BY THE FOREST LAKES ROADWAY AND
Page 293
June 14, 2005
DRAINAGE MSTU FOR ROAD AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Item #16B13
AWARD BID #05-3686 RADIO ROAD BEAUTIFICATION
MSTU/MSTD ROADWAY GROUNDS MAINTENANCE TO
ADVANCED LAWN AND LANDSCAPING SERVICE, INC.
WITH A BASE AMOUNT OF $99,298 AND IRRIGATION BID
ALTERNATE OF $16~400 FOR A TOTAL OF $115~698
Item #16B14
AMENDMENT NO. 03 TO CONTRACT NO. 03-3473 WITH HDR
ENGINEERING, INC. "CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR
PREP ARA TION OF A LAND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY FOR
THE BA YSHORE/GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AREA (CRA) DISTRICT"
SUPPLEMENTING CIVIL ENGINEERING DESIGN AND
SURVEYING SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $207,795 AND
TO APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$40,000 FOR THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, PROJECT NO. 518032 - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16B15
A WORK ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $414,458 TO HASKINS,
INC. IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONTRACT NO. 04-3535
UNDERGROUND UTILITY CONTRACTING SERVICES AND A
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $65,458 FOR
THE FARM WORKERS VILLAGE PROJECT, PROJECT NO.
Page 294
June 14, 2005
517012 - LOCATED OFF OF STATE ROAD 29,
APPROXIMATELY 2 MILES EAST OF IMMOKALEE
Item #16Cl
AMENDMENT NO.3 TO WORK ORDER NO. GH-FT-02-3;
PROFESSIONAL UTILITIES ENGINEERING SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH GREELEY AND HANSEN LLC, FOR THE
WELLFIELD DESIGN AND PERMITTING OF THE SOUTH
COUNTY WATER TREATMENT PLANT REVERSE OSMOSIS
WELLFIELD EXPANSION TO 20 MILLION GALLONS PER
DAY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $97,024, CONTRACT NO. 00-3119,
PROJECT NO. 708921 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16C2
WORK ORDER A WP-FT -05-02 NOT TO EXCEED $50,000 TO
ABOVE WATER PRlMARKETING FOR A PUBLIC
INFORMATION CAMPAIGN FOR THE NON-RESIDENTIAL
RECYCLING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-50 - TO BE USED FOR
MASS MAILING~ TELEVISION~ AND PRINT ADVERTISING
Item #16C3
CONTRACT #05-3739 FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE
COLLECTIONS TO CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, INC. AS PRIMARY CONTRACTOR AND EQ
FLORIDA, INC. AS THE SECONDARY CONTRACTOR IN THE
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $315,000 PER YEAR - FOR LAB
P ACKING~ TRANSPORT~ AND PROPER DISPOSAL
Page 295
June 14, 2005
Item #16C4
AN AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT WHEREBY THE COUNTY WILL
CONDUCT ADDITIONAL SURF ACE AND GROUND WATER
MONITORING IN THE PICAYUNE STRAND RESTORATION
AREA IN RETURN FOR $132,000 TO BE PAID TO THE
COUNTY BY THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16C5
CONTRACT #05-3815 FOR THE PURCHASE OF TWO FRONT
END LOADERS TO REPLACE TWO SKID LOADERS FOR THE
RECYCLING CENTERS TO KELLY TRACTOR COMPANY IN
THE AMOUNT OF $164,784 AND MAINTENANCE CONTRACT
FOR ON SITE SERVICE NOT TO EXCEED $1~900 PER YEAR
Item #16C6
THE COOPERATIVE PURCHASE FROM SARASOTA COUNTY
CONTRACT #2002-002 TO RETAIN THE SERVICES OF ANGIE
BREWER ASSOCIATES (ABA) IN THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL
AMOUNT OF $249,000 TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE IN THE
ACQUISITION OF LOW COST STATE REVOLVING FUND
(SRF) LOANS
Item # 16C7
AWARD CONTRACT #05-3661 "FIXED TERM DISASTER
DEBRIS MANAGEMENT, REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL
Page 296
June 14, 2005
SERVICES" TO THREE (3) FIRMS, ANNUAL COST IS
DEPENDENT ON NUMBER AND SEVERITY OF DISASTER
EVENTS OCURRING DURING THE FISCAL YEAR - FOR A
CONTRACT PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS WITH THE FIRMS OF
ASHBRITT~ CROWDER-GULF AND PHILLIPS & JORDAN
Item #16C8
AWARD BID #05-3826 FOR THE PURCHASE AND DELIVERY
OF EMULSION POLYMER IN THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL
AMOUNT OF $180,000 FOR THE WASTEWATER
DEPARTMENT - FOR SLUDGE DEWATERING AT THE
NORTH AND SOUTH WATER RECLAMATION FACILITIES
Item #16C9
AN AL TERNA TE WATER AND SEWER IMP ACT FEE
CALCULATION AND THE RESULTING RATE OF 26
GALLONS PER DAY PER SEAT FOR THE PROPOSED
CARRABBA'S ITALIAN GRILL IN THE FREEDOM SQUARE
SHOPPING CENTER - T AMIAMI TRAIL EAST
Item #16Dl
A REVISED LETTER OF AGREEMENT WITH THE AGENCY
FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION FOR AN
ADDITIONAL $500,000, GENERATING AN ADDITIONAL
$87,500 THROUGH USE OF THE UPPER PAYMENT LIMIT
PROGRAM - TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO LOW-INCOME
INDIVIDUALS
Item #16D2
Page 297
June 14, 2005
MODIFY THE AWARD OF BID #05-3843 FOR FOOD FOR THE
SUMMER MEAL PROGRAM FOR PARKS AND RECREATION
TO ALLOW FOR THE ADDITION OF NON-SPECIFIED ITEMS
Item #16D3
THE FY 03 AND FY 04 ANNUAL REPORTS TO THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR
VEHICLES FOR THE CHOOSE LIFE SPECIALTY LICENSE
PLATE
Item #16D4
AWARD OF RFP #05-3823 TO HEALTH FORCE, ACCU-CARE,
HOME INSTEAD, RIGHT AT HOME, HEAVEN SENT, CARE
CLUB OF COLLIER COUNTY AND MILLENNIUM HOUSE TO
PROVIDE ADULT DAY CARE AND IN-HOME CARE
SERVICES FOR THE HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT/SERVICES FOR SENIORS PROGRAM, THE
ESTIMATED ANNUAL BUDGET OF $625~000
Item #16D5
AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES
TO FUND CONSTRUCTION OF THE PULLING PROPERTY
BOAT RAMP FACILITY IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$400 ~ 000
Item #16El
AWARD OF BID #05-3809 TO TRUGREEN LANDCARE, FOR
"GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FOR GOVERNMENT
Page 298
June 14, 2005
COMPLEX"~ IN THE AMOUNT OF $76~884
Item #16E2 - Moved to Item #10G
Item # 16E3
THE EXPENDITURE OF A SUM NOT TO EXCEED $3,851.67
RESULTING FROM THE BOARD'S OCTOBER 26,2004
APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM 16E (3), TO RECLASSIFY
CERTAIN COUNTY EMPLOYMENT CLASSIFICATIONS FROM
EXEMPT TO NON-EXEMPT UNDER THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT - FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF OVERTIME
WAGES
Item #16E4
REPORT AND RATIFY PROPERTY, CASUALTY, WORKER'S
COMPENSATION AND SUBROGATION CLAIMS SETTLED
AND/OR CLOSED BY THE RISK MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR
PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 2004-15 FOR THE SECOND
QUARTER OF FY 05 - FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1,2005
THROUGH MARCH 31~ 2005
Item #16E5
AWARD WORK ORDER #VC-02-25 UNDER CONTRACT #02-
3349 FOR "GOLDEN GATE ADA IMPROVEMENTS" IN THE
AMOUNT OF $139,300 TO WM. J. VARIAN CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY -FOR RENOVATIONS AT GOLDEN GATE
COMMUNITY PARK
Item #16E6
Page 299
June 14, 2005
A CHANGE TO CONTRACT #05-3800 WITH VANDERBILT
BAY CONSTRUCTION TO ALLOW FOR THE DIRECT
MATERIAL PURCHASE OF PRE-CAST CONCRETE FOR THE
VANDERBILT BEACH PARKING GARAGE, TO SAVE THE
COUNTY $72~000 IN TAXES~ PROJECT NO. 90295
Item #16E7
EXPENDITURES FOR VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT TOWING
SERVICES IN EXCESS OF $25,000 ANNUALLY UNDER RFQ
#04-0335, "24-HOUR TOWING SERVICES" - REGARDING A
TWO YEAR CONTRACT WITH DIXON'S TOWING AND
MORLEY'S TOWING OF NAPLES
Item # 16E8
AWARD BID #05-3837 "RETROFIT ELEVATORS IN BUILDING
F (ADMINISTRATION BUILDING)" IN THE AMOUNT OF
$172,176 TO KONE ELEVATORS AND ESCALATORS FOR THE
RETROFIT OF ELEVATORS IN THE HARMON TURNER
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING - NEEDED TO IMPROVE THE
SAFETY AND EFFICIENCY OF THE ELEVATORS
Item #16E9
CHANGE ORDER NUMBER ONE (1), TO CONTRACT #04-3576,
"ANNEX PARKING GARAGE", WITH KRAFT
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. FOR THE DIRECT
MATERIAL PURCHASE OF THE PRE-CAST CONCRETE
PANELS TO SAVE $168,132 IN SALES TAX, PROJECT NO.
52010
Page 300
June 14, 2005
Item #16EI0
REPORT AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS
AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD-APPROVED
CONTRACTS - FOR THE PERIOD OF APRIL 25, 2005
THROUGH MAY 25~ 2005
Item #16Ell
A SOFTWARE SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH M/A COM, INC.
FOR CONTINUED SOFTWARE SUPPORT OF THE 800 MHZ
RADIO SYSTEM AT AN ANNUAL COST OF $71~250
Item #16Fl
WORK ORDER #CPE-FT-05-03 TO CONTRACT #01-3271
COUNTY/CITY OF NAPLES BEACH RENOURISHMENT
CONSTRUCTION PHASE BIOLOGICAL MONITORING SCOPE
OF WORK AND FEE PROPOSAL IN THE AMOUNT OF
$839~865.40 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16F2
WORK ORDER #CPE-FT-05-02 TO CONTRACT #01-3271 WITH
COASTAL PLANNING AND ENGINEERING FOR BEACH
PHYSICAL SURVEY FOR THE 2005 COUNTY/CITY OF
NAPLES BEACH RENOURISHMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$88~374.30~ PROJECT NO. 90527
Item #16F3
Page 301
June 14, 2005
USE OF THE FLORIDA SHERIFF'S STATEWIDE CONTRACT
FOR THE PURCHASE OF TWO (2) FIRE ENGINES BY THE
OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT AND APPROVE A
LEASE/PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND E-ONE~ INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $329~286
Item #16F4
SUBMITTAL OF THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT'S
APPLICATION FOR A VOLUNTEER FIRE ASSISTANCE
MATCHING (50/50) GRANT OFFERED BY THE FLORIDA
DIVISION OF FORESTRY, ACCEPT THE GRANT AWARD AND
APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO
RECOGNIZE AND APPROPRIATE REVENUE IN THE
AMOUNT OF $15,877.30 - USED TO PURCHASE VHF RADIOS
TO BE USED DURING MAJOR STORM EVENTS AND BRUSH
FIRES
Item #16F5
THE SUBMITTAL OF THE OCHOPEE FIRE DISTRICT'S
APPLICATION FOR A VOLUNTEER FIRE ASSISTANCE
MATCHING (50/50) GRANT OFFERED BY THE FLORIDA
DIVISION OF FORESTRY, ACCEPT THE GRANT AWARD AND
APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO
RECOGNIZE AND APPROPRIATE REVENUE IN THE
AMOUNT OF $9,988.50 - USED TO PURCHASE 800 MHZ
PORTABLE RADIOS CRUCIAL FOR COMMUNICATION
BETWEEN COUNTY AGENCIES
Item #16F6
Page 302
June 14, 2005
RESOLUTION 2005-224: UPDATING USER FEES FOR
COLLIER COUNTY AMBULANCE SERVICES, SUPERCEDING
AND REPLACING RESOLUTION NO. 2004-231 - WITH AN
EFFECTIVE DATE OF JULY 26~ 2005
Item #16Gl - Approved as CRA before Item #16A14 as the BCC
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA)
RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT OF
UP TO $300,000 IN FY05 BUDGET TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING (TIF) FUNDS FOR THE SERVICES OF A
CONSULTANT TO ASSIST WITH THE PREPARATION OF A
REVISED IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN (lAMP) AND A
NEW RURAL LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ZONING
OVERLAY FOR THE IMMOKALEE URBAN AREA - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16G2
A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR $22,100 TO INCREASE
BUDGETED REVENUES AND BUDGETED EXPENSES FOR
THE SALE AND PURCHASE OF AVIATION FUEL AT THE
IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT - DUE TO AN INCREASE
IN THE COST OF FUEL
Item #161
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR
REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the
Page 303
June 14, 2005
Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 304
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
June 14,2005
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 April 30, 2005 through May 6,2005.
2. Disbursements for May 7,2005 through May 13,2005.
B. Districts:
1. Cedar Hammock Community Development District - Registered Office
and Agent; Schedule of Regular Meetings; Agenda for February 14,2005;
Minutes of October 11, 2004.
2. Collier Mosquito Control District - Public Facilities Report.
3. Fiddler's Creek Community Development District #2 - Registered Office
and Agent; Schedule of Regular Meetings; Agenda for January 26,2005;
Minutes of January 26,2005; Agenda and Minutes of February 23,2005;
Financial Statements for January 31,2005.
4. Riviera Golf Estates - Agenda and Minutes for February 16,2005.
5. Heritage Greens Community Development District - Schedule of Regular
Meetings; Agenda and Minutes of November 1, 2004.
6. Key Marco Community Development District - Budget; Schedule of
Regular Meetings; Description of Outstanding Bonds; Agenda and
Minutes of July 8, 2004.
7. Naples Heritage Community Development District - General Fund Budget
FY 2005; Agenda and Minutes of Jan. 10, 2005Agenda and Minutes of
May 3,2004; Agenda and Minutes of September 15,2004, Minutes
November 8, 2004.
8. Immokalee Water and Sewer District - Annual Financial Report; Audit;
Management Letter; and Rebuttal to Management Letter.
9. Golden Gate Fire Control District - Annual Financial Report; Audit;
Management Letter; Rebuttal to Management Letter; Budget; District;
H:DataIFormat
10. Wentworth Estates Community Development District - Agenda and
Minutes of July 7,2004. BudgetFY 2004, Agenda and Minutes of August
19,2004
11. Port of the Islands Community Improvements District - Agenda and
Minutes for November 19, 2004;Agenda and Minutes of December 17,
2004;
12. Fiddler's Creek Community Development District - Agenda and Minutes
for September 22, 2004; Unaudited Financial Statements for August 31,
2004; Agenda and Minutes for October 27,2007; Financial Statements
Unaudited for September 30, 2004; Agenda and Minutes of January 26,
2005; Unaudited Financial Statement for December 31,2004; Agenda and
Minutes for February 23, 2005, Unaudited Financial Statements for
January 31,2005.
13. Collier County Housing Authority - Annual Financial Report; Audit;
Management Letter; Budget; Registered Officer and Agent; Schedule of
Regular Meetings; Public Facilities Report; and Description of
Outstanding Bonds.
14. South Florida Water Management District - Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report (two books, one for 2003 and 2004) and related
Management Letter for FY 2004; a list of District's Scheduled Governing
Board Meetings; Public Use Guide to land Management Areas. Annual
Financial Report; Audit; Management Letter; Budget; District Map;
Schedule of Regular Meetings; Public Facilities Report; Description of
Outstanding Bonds.
15. Ouarry Community Development District - Agenda and Minutes of
October 28, 2004; Agenda and Minutes of November 8, 2004 and
November 17,2004.
16. Fiddler's Creek Community Development District #2 - Agenda and
Minutes for November 3, 2004.
17. Cow Slough Water Control District - Budget for FY 2005-2006 and
Meeting dates for FY 2005-2006
C. Minutes:
1. Lake Trafford Task Force - Minutes of April 6, 2005.
2. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage M.S.T.U. -_No quorum for meeting.
3. Domestic Animal Services Advisory Committee - Minutes of April 19,
2005.
H:DatalFormat
4. Lely Golf Estates Beautification M.S.T.U - Agenda for May 19, 2005;
Minutes of April 21, 2005.
5. Bayshore Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda for May 11,2005; Minutes
for April 13, 2005.
6. Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U - Agenda for May 17, 2005; Minutes
for April 19, 2005;
7. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board -Agenda for May 18, 2005;
Minutes for April 20, 2005.
8. Collier County Planning Commission - Agenda for May 19,2005;
Minutes for April 7, 2005;.
9. Coastal Advisory Committee - Minutes for April 14, 2005; Minutes for
March 10, 2005 regular meeting, Minutes for March 10, 2005 Erosion
Control Line Workshop; Minutes for March 24, 2005 Special meeting.
a) Coastal Advisory Committee - Inlet Sub-Committee Minutes for
AprilS, 2005.
10. Vanderbilt Beach M.S.T.U. - Minutes for May 5,2005.
11. Development Services Advisory Committee - Agenda and Minutes
Special Meeting of the Budget and Operations Sub-Committee Minutes
April 27, 2005.
12. Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee - Meeting Agenda for
May 10, 2005; Minutes of April 12, 2005
13. Productivity Committee Meeting - Minutes for April 20, 2005.
14. Contractor's Licensing Board - Cancellation Notice of the May 18th
Meeting.
15. Pelican Bay Services Division - Agenda for May 18th 2005; Minutes of
the Budget Sub-Committee for April 20, 2005
D. Other:
H:DataIF ormat
1) Guy L. Carlton, Collier County Tax Collector - Budget Amendment/Transfer,
Budget Year Ending September 30, 2005
June 14, 2005
Item #16J1
TO PRESENT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THE STATE REVENUE SHARING APPLICATION FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2005-2006 AND FOR THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE
APPLICATION - APPLICATION REQUIRES THE SIGNATURES
OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL, FIRE OFFICIAL,
CHIEF FISCAL OFFICER AND CHAIRMAN OF THE
GOVERNING BODY, THE APPLICATION MUST BE
SUBMITTED ANNUALLY BY JUNE 30
Item #16K1
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $28,000 TO
TRANSFER FUNDS FROM FUND 652 RESERVES TO ITS
OPERATING BUDGET TO FULFILL THE COUNTY'S ANNUAL
OBLIGATION TO LEGAL AID - FOR QUALIFYING INDIGENT
RESIDENTS OF COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16K2
A MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND A
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGEMENT TO BE DRAFTED
INCORPORATING THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS
THE MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RELATIVE TO
THE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 111 IN THE,500 AS TO
PARCEL 103 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
OCEAN BOULEVARD PARTNERSHIP, ET AL., CASE NO. 04-
4300-CA, FISCAL IMPACT $3,196, IMMOKALLE ROAD
PROJECT NO. 66042
Item #16K3
Page 305
June 14, 2005
AN OFFER OF JUDGEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $16,500 AS
TO PARCEL 103 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY
V. OCEAN BOULEVARD PARTNERSHIP, ET AL., CASE NO. 04-
4300-CA, FISCAL IMPACT $3,196, IMMOKALEE ROAD
PROJECT NO. 66042
Item #16K4
A MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$78,000 FOR PARCEL NOS. 142, 742A, 742B, AND 942 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. PARKWAY
COMMUNITY CHURCH OF GOD, ET AL., CASE NO. 03-2374-
CA, FISCAL IMPACT $32,509.20, GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY
PROJECT 60027 - DIRECT STAFF TO PAY LAW OFFICES OF
PAULA. BLUCHERP.A. TRUST ACCOUNT
Item #16K5
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$121,972 FOR PARCEL NOS. 141,841, AND 143 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. PRIMERA IGLESIA
CRISTIANA MANANTIAL DE VIDA, INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 03-
2372-CA, FISCAL IMPACT $31,285.16, GOLDEN GATE
PARKWAY PROJECT 60027 - DIRECT STAFF TO PAY LAW
OFFICES OF PAUL A. BLUCHER P.A. TRUST ACCOUNT
Item #16K6
RESOLUTION 2005-225: AUTHORIZING THE COLLIER
COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY TO ISSUE MULTI-FAMILY
HOUSING REVENUE BONDS TO BE USED TO FINANCE THE
Page 306
June 14, 2005
ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION OF THE GEORGE
WASHINGTON CARVER APARTMENTS IN NAPLES -
LOCATED AT 350 10TH STREET NORTH
Item #16K7
RESOLUTION 2005-226: AUTHORIZING THE RE-APPROV AL
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY TO ISSUE
MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS TO BE USED
TO FINANCE THE SUMMER LAKES II PROJECT - LOCATED
ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD~ WEST OF 1-75
Item #16K8
RESOLUTION 2005-227: AUTHORIZING THE COLLIER
COUNTY HEAL TH FACILITIES AUTHORITY TO ISSUE
REVENUE BONDS FOR HEAL THCARE FACILITIES AT
MOORINGS PARK - FOR EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE
CONSTRUCTION OF 54 INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS
Item #16K9
A COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO EIGHT-
THREE (83) CITATIONS ISSUED TO JOSEPH DEROMA,
BETWEEN OCTOBER 3, 2000, AND JULY 16, 2003, FILED IN
COLLIER COUNTY COURT, AND DIRECT THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO FILE A NOTICE OF DISMASSAL IN
EACH CASE AS SET FORTH IN THE COMPLIANCE
AGREEMENT - FOR DWELLING UNITS LOCATED AT 16TH
PLACE SW AND VERITY LANE
Item #17 A -Moved to Item #8E
Page 307
June 14, 2005
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2005-228: PETITION A VROW2004-AR6443 TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND
THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A PORTION OF THE ROAD
RIGHT OF WAY FOR CHURCH AVENUE WHICH WAS
DEDICATED TO THE COUNTY BY THE PLAT OF "BAY
PARK," AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 61, PUBLIC
RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND TO
ACCEPT A 15 FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT.
LOCATED IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2005-229: DESIGNATING 9,911.1 ACRES IN THE
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT
(RLSA) AS STEWARDSHIP SENDING AREA 6 ("BCI/BCP SSA
6"), APPROVING A CREDIT AGREEMENT FOR BCI/BCP SSA 6
AND ESTABLISHING THE NUMBER OF STEWARDSHIP
CREDITS GENERATED BY THE DESIGNATION OF SAID
STEWARDSHIP SENDING AREA IN RESPONSE TO AN
APPLICATION BY BARRON COLLIER INVESTMENTS, LTD.
AND BARON COLLIER PARTNERSHIP
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:10 p.m.
Page 308
June 14, 2005
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
~W.~
FRED W. COYLE, Chairman
ATTEST:
DWIGl!J.E{J,~ROCK, CLERK
< (" ,," <"""
~' ~...~..~.~, /l~.
- .:' t ' .',
Attest'.~ to ctIti'~. .
'1gnltur";0G~/,." "~,",~,j:
These minutes approved by the Board on cr ~ t.blZ0C6 , as
presented./ or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 309