BCC Minutes 06/28/2005 R
June 28, 2005
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, June 28, 2005
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such
special district as has been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9: 00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Fred W. Coyle
Frank Halas
Tom Henning
Donna Fiala
Jim Coletta
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Derek Johnssen, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
tì
.... ~-(
"'.........,.-,""'-.,
AGENDA
June 28, 2005
9:00 AM
Fred W. Coyle, Chairman, District 4
Frank Halas, Vice-Chairman, District 2
Donna Fiala, Commissioner, District 1
Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3
Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED REQUIRES
THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING
ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
Page 1
June 28, 2005
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5)
MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
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 24, 2005 - BCC/Regular Meeting
C. June 7, 2005 - BCC/Beach Access Workshop
D. June 7, 2005 - BCC/Cycle I 2004 Adoption
E. June 8, 2005 - BCC/Legislative Workshop
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. 25 Year Attendees
1) Ron Jamro, Museum
B. 30 Year Attendees
Page 2
June 28, 2005
1) Luz Pietri, Library
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation to designate June 28, 2005 as National HIV Testing Day. To
be accepted by Scott Tims, HIV Program Director for the Collier County
Health Department.
B. Proclamation recognizing participation of members of the United States
Military and urge all citizens, community businesses, service clubs and
schools to become involved and support our men and women in the Armed
Services and celebrate Independence Day 2005. Proclamation to be accepted
by John Veit, Parks and Recreation Department.
C. Proclamation recognizing June 13-19, 2005 as Mote Marine Laboratory
Week.
D. Proclamation designating July 6, 2005 as Austin Gray Day to be accepted by
Dianne Gray (Austin Gray's mother).
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of the Advisory Committee Outstanding Member Award to
Mark Morton of the Smart Growth Advisory Committee.
B. Recommendation to recognize Chuck Diehl, Telecommunications Analyst,
Administrative Services Division, as Employee of the Month for June 2005.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request by Beth Nelson to discuss exemption to the LDC as
requested by a developer.
B. Public Petition request by Tari Harris to discuss the hanging of "Front Porch
Community" signs in Immokalee.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 v.m., unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Page 3
June 28, 2005
A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PE-2005-AR-7123:
Michael Miceli, owner, requesting a parking exemption to allow off-site
parking on a lot that is not commercially zoned, and to allow two or more
permitted uses to utilize the same or a portion of the same required parking,
pursuant to the proposed Subsection 4.05.02.K.3. The subject 0.99-acre
property is located at 4600 Gulf Stream Drive, in Section 18, Township 50
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. It is recommended this item be continued to the July 26. 2005 BCC
Meetin2. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Chapter 74 of the
Code of Laws and Ordinances, as amended by Ordinance No. 2001-13 (The
Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, as amended), repealing
a portion of §74-201, and replacing same in §74-40l(a); amending Article
IV pertaining to the affordable housing provisions to eliminate provisions
for waiver of impact fees; establishing a ceiling on the amount of impact fee
deferrals; reorganizing provisions in Articles II and IV relating to affordable
housing for clarity; providing for conflict and severability; providing for
inclusion in the Code of Laws and Ordinances; and providing for an
effective date.
B. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU-2004-AR-6965,
Kelly Michele Smith, Project Planner for Davidson Engineering, Inc.,
representing Florida Homes of Collier County, Inc., requests Section 2.04.03
of the Collier County Land Development Code of the Estates Zoning District
for the purpose of a model home sales center. The property to be considered
for the Conditional Use is located at 12815 and 12825 Collier Boulevard
being located at the Northwest comer of 13th Avenue S.W. and Collier
Boulevard (C.R. 951), which is Unit 26, Tract 118, Golden Gate Estates, in
Section 15, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County Florida. This
property consists of 5 acres.
C. This item was continued from the April 26. 2005 BCC Meetin2. This
item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure
be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2004-AR-6258, Elias
Page 4
June 28, 2005
Brothers Communities at Palermo Cove, Inc., represented by Dwight
Nadeau, of RWA, Inc., and Chuck Basinait, of Henderson, Franklin, Starnes
& Holt, P.A. requesting a rezone from the Agriculture zoning district to the
Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district to be known
as Palermo Cove PUD, consisting of 131 acres and a maximum of 524
residential dwelling units. The property is located north of Wolfe Road, west
of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida.
D. This item was continued from the June 14.2005 BCC Meetin2. This
item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure
be provided by Commission members. RZ-2003-AR-496l 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.
E. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2004-AR-6919:
Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. and Eugene U. Frey,
represented by Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. requesting a rezone
from the RSF-5(3) zoning district to the Residential Planned Unit
Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as the Regal
Acres PUD to allow for a maximum of 184 residential units; and,
consideration and approval of an affordable housing density bonus
agreement authorizing the developer to utilize affordable housing bonus
density units (in the amount of 74 units at 2.0 bonus density units per acre)
in the development of this project for low-income residents that will
designate 100 percent of the units as Affordable Housing units. The subject
property, consisting of 36.75 acres, is located on the west side of Greenway
Road, east of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), and north of U.S. 41. The
subj ect property is located within Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Page 5
June 28, 2005
A. Recommendation to declare a vacancy on the Public Vehicle Advisory
Committee.
B. Appointment of member to the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory
Committee.
C. Appointment of member to the Collier County Code Enforcement Board.
D. Appointment of member to the County Government Productivity
Committee.
E. Appointment of member to the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory
Committee.
F. A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County
declaring a public purpose for the solicitation of donations and the receipt of
donations to construct a Freedom Memorial for Collier County in
accordance with the action of the Board of County Commissioners at its
regularly scheduled April 26, 2005 meeting. (Commissioner Coyle)
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to approve Johnson Engineering, Inc. as a qualified firm
and award a contract under ITQ 04-3583 "CEI Services for Collier County
Road Projects" for Project No. 60018 "Immokalee Road Project from Collier
Blvd. to 43rd Ave. N.E." in the amount of$I,089,810.74. (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation Services)
B. This item to be heard at 11 :30 a.m. Recommendation to approve the Major
Transit Development Plan Update, FY 2006-2010. (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation Services)
C. This item to be heard at 5:00 p.m. and will be the last item heard on this
day (Tuesday. June 28. 2005) Recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners approve multiple road corridor alignment concepts in the
North Belle Meade area for long range planning purposes, and also approve
multiple corridors to be used in the short term as truck haul routes. (Norman
Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
Page 6
June 28, 2005
D. Recommendation to award a construction contract in the amount of
$15,800,000 to John Carlo, Inc. for capacity improvements to Goodlette-
Frank Road, from Golden Gate Parkway to Pompei Lane, Project No. 60005,
Bid No. 05-3851. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
E. Recommendation to approve a budget amendment recognizing $1,887,984
in grant revenue from the Florida Communities Trust as reimbursement for
the purchase of the Barefoot Beach Outparcel, appropriating $300,000 to
fulfill requirements of the grant and appropriating the balance to fund capital
elements of beach access projects. (Marla Ramsey, Administrator, Public
Services)
F. Recommendation to approve a Developers Contribution Agreement with
Wal-Mart/Gateway, WCI Communities, Inc., and Stonebreak Homes LLC
AKA Rimar to design, permit and construct roadway and intersection
improvements on SR 951, the intersection of US 41/SR 951 and SR 951
north of Henderson Creek to approximately 1300' north of US 41. (Norman
Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
G. Discuss status ofFEMA Floodplain Mapping Project and options regarding
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Letter of Final
Determination (LFD) dated May 17,2005 to Collier County officially
notifying the County that FEMA now considers the Base (1 % Annual
Chance) Flood elevations (BFEs) on the preliminary Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (FIRM) and Flood Insurance Study (FIS) Report to be final (Joseph K.
Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development) (Companion to Item
12A.)
H. Recommendation to award Bid #05-3833 to Encore Construction Company
for the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant (NCRWTP)
Appurtenances for Mid Hawthorn Zone 1 Wells 114N, 115N, and 116N, in
the amount of $ 1,690,000, Project Number 710111. (Jim DeLony,
Administrator, Public Utilities)
I. Recommendation to approve the necessary Budget Amendment and award
Bid #05-3807 to D.N. Higgins, Inc. for the Construction of Wells 35 and 36,
in the amount of $954,720, Project Number 701582. (Jim DeLony,
Administrator, Public Utilities)
Page 7
June 28, 2005
J. Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the Amount of
$4,000,000 to initiate a new Public Utilities project to Design and Construct
a failing water main on US 41 from Rattlesnake Hammock Road to Barefoot
Williams Road Project 71059 (User Fees). (Jim DeLony, Administrator,
Public Utilities)
K. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a draw
of $27,000,000 against a previously approved Local Government Pooled
Commercial Paper Program Loan Agreement; designating the Chairman of
the Board of County Commissioners to be the authorized signor of the draw
agreement. (Jim DeLony, Administrator, Public Utilities)
L. Recommendation to approve the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
with staffs recommendations associated with the Final Plat and
Construction Plans (PPL) for AR# 6399 (3500 Corporate Plaza, Kraft
Construction) (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. Discussion ofFEMA Alternatives / Direction. (Companion to Item lOG.)
B. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to Section 286.011(8), Fla. Stat., the
Board of County Commissioners will meet in executive (closed attorney-
client to be heard at 12:00 noon) session on TUESDAY, June 28, 2005,
in the Commission conference room, 3rd Floor, W. Harmon Turner
Building, Collier County Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail,
Naples, Florida. The Board in executive session will discuss: Settlement
proposal/litigation expense issues of the pending litigation case of Collier
County v. Lexington Insurance Company, Case No. 2:05-cv-216-FtM-
33SPC, now pending in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Fort Myers, Florida.
C. This item to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. Discuss Settlement Offer from
Lexington Insurance Company in reference to Collier County v. Lexington
Insurance Company, Case No. 2:05-cv-216-FtM-33SPC, now pending in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers,
Florida and give direction to County Attorney regarding the litigation.
Page 8
June 28, 2005
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 the Lien Resolutions for the abatements
of public nuisances in accordance with Ordinance 99-51, as amended.
2) Recommendation to approve an amendment to the Arbor View
Apartments' agreement authorizing an affordable housing density
bonus and imposing covenants and restrictions on the real property.
3) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Ashton
Place", approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security
4) Recommendation to approve a request for reimbursement and declare
an educational workshop as serving a valid public purpose.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to rescind the award of bid #05-3830 U.S. 41 East
(Rattlesnake Hammock to St. Andrews Blvd.) landscape and irrigation
installation to Hannula Landscaping due to utility renovation.
2) Recommendation to authorize staff to approve one (1) Work Order (in
the amount of $51 ,650) for Professional Design Services related to a
Page 9
June 28, 2005
LAP Reimbursement Agreement Project titled "Sidewalks - Various
Locations" .
3) Recommendation to approve County budget amendment to reflect the
award of a $1 million loan from the State's Toll Facilities Revolving
Trust Fund to the Collier MPO for the SS Jolley Bridge Toll
Feasibility Study.
4) The purchase of one (1) 20 cu.yd. Dump Truck for the replacement of
020159 16 cu. yd. Dump Truck that was totaled in a vehicular
accident on May 17,2005. Total replacement cost for new dump truck
$91,225.00.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to approve, execute and record Satisfactions for
certain Water and/or Sewer Impact Fee Payment Agreements. Fiscal
impact is $58.50 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
2) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of
Lien for a Solid Waste residential account wherein the County has
received payment and said Lien is satisfied in full for the 1992 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal
impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
3) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of
Lien for a Solid Waste residential account wherein the County has
received payment and said lien is satisfied in full for the 1993 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal
impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
4) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of
Lien for a Solid Waste residential account wherein the County has
received payment and said Lien is satisfied in full for the 1994 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal
impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
5) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfactions of
Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has
received payment and said Liens are satisfied in full for the 1995
Page 10
June 28, 2005
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
Fiscal impact is $30.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
6) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of
Lien for a Solid Waste residential account wherein the County has
received payment and said Lien is satisfied in full for the 1996 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal
impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
7) Recommendation to approve execution of a Mutual Aid Agreement
between the Collier County Water-Sewer District and other
FlaW ARN participating Utilities.
8) Recommendation to approve necessary Budget Amendments to
Transfer Wastewater Department Funds from County Water-Sewer
Operating Fund 408 to Fund 518, (in the amount of $37,107.68) Risk
Management for the purpose of cost sharing in the purchase of a Gas
Monitor System for the Water, Wastewater and Risk Management
Departments.
9) Recommendation to accept Rights-of-Entry and Utility Easements
from two property owners required for the construction of a 16-inch
reclaimed water main along the southerly side of Davis Boulevard for
Radio Road/Davis Boulevard Reclaimed Water Main Project Number
740351, at a cost not to exceed $1,000.
10) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution approving execution of a Lot
Line Adjustment Affidavit pertaining to the County and Robert G.
France and to approve the statutory exchange of property that together
will provide the County with the necessary lands in fee and easement
ownership required to make an existing site for proposed raw water
wells viable and that would have the desired effect of eliminating an
existing encroachment by Mr. France's private property onto public
lands.
11) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution approving Special
Assessment Hardship Deferrals for certain Sewer Special
Assessments for the 2005 tax year. The fiscal impact is $18.50 to
record the Resolution.
Page 11
June 28, 2005
12) Recommendation to approve a change order in the amount of
$32,030.00 to Work Order # HM-FT-02-01 with Hole Montes, Inc.
for professional engineering services related to installation of a 16-
inch reclaimed water system interconnect from Radio Road to Davis
Boulevard, Project Number 74035.
13) Recommendation to award Bid Number 05-3839 to AAA Generator
& Pump, Incorporated for the purchase and delivery of four (4)
generators by the Wastewater Department in the amount of$196,765
and approve a budget amendment to transfer $196,765 from Reserves
to Project 73958, Purchase Generators for Lift Station Reliability.
14) Recommendation to approve; an Interlocal Agreement between
Collier County Water Sewer District and the School Board of Collier
County for the re-routing of the Lely High School Force Main, an
Amendment to Work Order HM-FT-04-01, Contract 00-3119 with
Hole Montes in the amount of $42,400, and a budget amendment in
the amount of $398,000 for the SCWRF Reliability Improvements
Project, 72508.
15) Recommendation to approve the necessary Budget Amendment and
authorize the Public Utilities Engineering Director to execute Work
Order MPI-FT-05-03 for project management assistance and oversight
in an amount not to exceed $85,000 during upgrades and
modifications to the Lime Softening Water Treatment Plant Process at
the South County Regional Water Treatment Plant, Project 700571.
16) Recommendation to approve Work Order # UC-113 with Mitchell &
Stark Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $694,300.00 for
construction of fire and irrigation water system improvements at Bay
Colony Shores in Pelican Bay, Project Number 74023.
17) Recommendation to approve Work Order # UC-114 with Mitchell &
Stark Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $230,500.00 for
construction of fire and irrigation water system improvements at
Georgetown in Pelican Bay, Project Number 74023.
18) Recommendation to award Contract 05-3831 "FEMA Acceptable
Monitoring of Disaster Generated Debris Management" to three (3)
Page 12
June 28, 2005
firms. Annual cost will be dependent on the number and severity of
the disaster events occurring eligible for FEMA reimbursement during
the fiscal year.
19) Recommendation that the Board Approve the Cooperative Purchase
from Hillsborough County to retain services of Public Resources
Management Group (PRMG) in the estimated annual amount of
$500,000 to provide consulting services and analysis for Utility Rate
Study Updates, Impact Fee Study Updates, Development of Bulk
Service Rates and other necessary utility related financial consulting
servIces.
20) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to transfer
$417,999 from Fund (408) Reserve for Contingencies to cover
unanticipated expenses in the Water Distribution Cost Center.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to award Work Order #PBS-02-46 in the amount of
$82,378 to PBS, Inc. for replacement of the docks at Cocohatchee
River Park.
2) Recommendation to approve a Limited Use License Agreement
between the Board of County Commissioners and the Naples Junior
Chamber of Commerce, Inc., approving use of specified county-
owned property for conducting a July 4th Fireworks Festival.
3) Recommendation to approve purchase and installation of playground
equipment for Vineyards Community Park and Immokalee
Community Park from Piazza, Inc. in an amount not to exceed
$140,000.
4) Recommendation to approve budget amendments in the amount of
$202,000 for the Older Americans Act Nutrition program and
authorize the Chairman to sign the agreement between Collier County
Board of County Commissioners and Senior Connections of
Southwest Florida to provide nutrition services.
Page 13
June 28, 2005
5) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$6,074 to ensure continuous funding of the Home Care for the Elderly
grant.
6) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$614,132 to ensure continuous funding of the Community Care for the
Elderly grant.
7) Recommendation to approve budget amendments in the amount of
$105,706 to ensure continuous funding of the Alzheimer's Disease
Initiative grant.
8) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$63,549 to ensure continuous funding of the Older Americans Act
grant in the Human Services Department.
9) Recommendation to apply to the Florida Department of Health for a
Primary Care Children and Families Challenge Grant in the amount of
$154,500 to expand primary care at the Horizon's Clinic.
10) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$409,600 to fund payment to the City of Naples under the Interlocal
Agreement for Reciprocal Beach Parking.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to award Bid # 05-3827 "Temporary Laborers" to
Tandem Staffing, Able Body Labor and Pacesetter Personnel Services
for Collier County Work Projects.
2) Recommendation that the BCC award Bid #05-3806, Purchase of
Protective Footwear to Vic's Shoe and Boot and to Safety Shoe
Distributors.
3) The Board of County Commissioners award Bid #05-3853, "Small
Landscape Equipment" to referenced dealerships for the products
indicated on the attached Bid Matrix. Expenditures are projected at
$40,000 - $50,000 annually.
Page 14
June 28, 2005
4) Recommendation to utilize the contract between Pinellas County
Government and CS STARS, LLC (Contract No. 034-770-P) for the
purchase of a Risk Management Information System at a cost of
$70,175 per year.
5) Approve Contract Amendment No.1 involving Contract #02-3371,
"Fixed Term Professional Transportation Planning Consultant
Services" .
6) Recommendation to award RFP No. 05-3795- "Enterprise Content
Management Strategy" and proceed with Phase 1 "Analysis" in the
amount of $95,000.00.
7) Recommendation to extend contract 00-3090 (Indoor Air Quality
Services) until a new contract is award.
8) Recommendation to approve a Third Amendment to Lease Agreement
with Arnold Properties, Inc., for the continued use of
garage/warehouse space by the Sheriff s Office at a total cost of
$36,639.60.
9) Recommendation to authorize supplemental pay to employees who
are recalled to active duty for the entire duration of their tour.
10) Recommendation to approve Amendment No.5, for Phase 2 and
Phase 3 of Contract # 00-3173 with Spillis Candela DMJM to provide
Design Development and Construction Administration Services for
the Courthouse Annex, floors five (5) through seven (7) in the amount
of $553,920.00
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommendation to approve Tourist Development Category "C-2"
Grant Application and Agreement with Naples Botanical Garden for
$207,100.
2) Recommend Approval of Change Order #1 to Contract #05-3744 with
Marine Contracting Group, Inc. to provide for the storage of
construction equipment off the beach in the not to exceed amount of
Page 15
June 28, 2005
$42,300 for the Hideaway Beach Jetty and T-Groin Construction
Project 90502.
3) Recommend Approval of Change Order # 1 to Bid#04-3667 with
Weeks Marine Inc. for additional sand placement on Hideaway Beach
as part of the Hideaway Beach Re-nourishment Project 905021 in the
Amount of $185,000 and four additional contract days.
4) Recommend approval for the Tourist Development Tax Category "A"
1 0- Year Expense and Revenue Projections as part of the budget
process for Fiscal Year 2006.
5) Recommendation to approve an Agreement between Collier County
and Cleveland Clinic Florida Hospital Naples Non-Profit Corporation
for use of the Medical Examiner facility to conduct autopsies.
6) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$268,625.03 for the purchase of two replacement ambulances.
7) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a
Resolution fixing the date, time and place for approving the Special
Assessment to be levied against the properties within Pelican Bay.
8) Approval of budget amendments.
9) Recommendation to award Bid #05-3836 to Pantropic Power for the
rental of generators and spot air coolers for the 2005 hurricane season
at an initial cost of$18,750.
10) Recommendation to waive formal competition and approve
negotiating an annual contract not to exceed $125,000 with The
Ferguson Group for federal lobbying services.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Approve a Budget Amendment for $10,000.00 to fund costs incurred
to complete the Security System for the Federal Inspection Station
(U.S. Customs office) at the Immokalee Regional Airport.
Page 16
June 28, 2005
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous Correspondence to be filed for record with action as
directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the
amount of $34,000.00 as to Parcel Nos. 162 and 762 in the lawsuit
styled Collier County v. Beverly J. Gatti, et aI., Case No. 03-2551-CA
(Golden Gate Parkway Project 60027). (Fiscal Impact $21,448.00)
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
187 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Patrick J. Murphy, et aI.
Case No. 03-5270-CA (Vanderbilt Beach Road Project No. 63051).
Additional cost to County is $107,331.00 after credit for amount
deposited.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
Page 17
June 28, 2005
A. Adopt a Resolution authorizing a change to Water and Wastewater Impact
Fee Schedule Two of Appendix A, Ordinance 2001-13, as amended, to
correct scrivener's errors in order to correctly state the square footage range
in the assessment of residential water and wastewater impact fees and to
state that the minimum water impact fee is $2,760 for one (1) ERC.
B. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance No. 2003-
61, as amended which is Article II of Chapter 49 of the Collier County Code
of Laws and Ordinances, incorporating changes to the Fee Payment
Assistance Program based on direction by the Board of County
Commissioners.
c. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Chapter 74 of the
County's Code of Laws and Ordinances, as amended by Ordinance No.
2001-13 (the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, as
amended), providing for an increase in both the cumulative and individual
annual amount of impact fee waivers provided to charitable organizations, a
maximum amount of waiver eligible to qualified applicants and the
maximum amount that may be carried forward as a program balance in
accordance with previous direction provided by the Board of County
Commissioners.
D. Recommendation to adopt an ordinance amending the code of laws and
ordinances of Collier County, Florida, as adopted by ordinance number 02-
49 the Collier County Fire Prevention and Protection code by amending
Chapter 58, Fire Prevention and Protection, Article II, fire safety standards
for the unincorporated area of Collier County, by amending Section 58-26,
pertaining to adopted standards and codes of the national fire codes
published by the National Fire Protection Association (NFP A); amending
section 58-27, pertaining to amendments to adopted fire codes, specifically
NFP AI, 2003 edition; replacing section 58-28, pertaining to amendments to
the adopted life safety code, specifically NFP A 101, 2003 edition; providing
for the inclusion in the code of laws and ordinances; providing for conflict
and severability; and providing an effective date.
E. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt an
Ordinance amending Schedule Eight of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the
Page 18
June 28, 2005
Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, (The Collier County
Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance) providing for the incorporation by
reference of the amended impact fee study entitled "Collier County Library
Facilities and Items Impact Fee Update (with revisions in April 2005) and
applying the annual indexing adjustment to reflect an increased new rate of
$180.89 per one-thousand (1,000) square feet of living area for all residential
land uses, and providing for a delayed effective date of August 1,2005.
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 28, 2005
June 28, 2005
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning. The Board of County
Commissioners' meeting is now in session.
Would you please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. I'm sorry.
We have the invocation first.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Right? And it will be delivered by
Pastor Clay Cartwright of the East Naples Baptist Church.
Is Pastor Cartwright here?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Let us pray. Our Heavenly Father, we ask your
blessings on these proceedings and all who are gathered here. We ask
a special 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.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And would you join us in the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Okay. Mr. Mudd, do we have any changes to the agenda?
Item #2A
REGULAR CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA- APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Agenda changes, Board of County
Page 2
June 28, 2005
Commissioners' meeting June 28th, 2005.
First item is to move item 8B to 7B. This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members.
It's conditional use 2004-AR-6965, Kelly Mitchell (sic) Smith,
project planner for Davidson Engineering, Inc., representing Florida
Homes of Collier County, Inc., requests section 2.04.03 of the Collier
County Land Development Code of the Estates zoning district for the
purpose of a model home sales center.
This property to be considered for the conditional use is located
at 12815 and 12825 Collier Boulevard, being located at the northwest
corner of 13th Avenue Southwest and Collier Boulevard/County Road
951, which is Unit 26, Tract 118, Golden Gate Estates, in Section 15,
Township 49 south, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida.
This property consists of five acres. Again, this item is moved
from 8B to 7B.
Next item is move item 17A to 16C21. It's adopt a resolution
authorizing a change to Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Schedule
Two of Appendix A, Ordinance 2001-13 as amended to correct a
scrivener's error in order to correctly state the square footage range in
the assessment of residential water and wastewater impact fees and to
state that the minimum water impact fee is $2,760 for one ERC, and
that's at staffs request.
And the other items necessarily aren't changes, but it's basically a
note for time-certain items for the people in attendance today.
The first item is item lOB. It will be heard at 11 :30 a.m. this
morning. It's a recommendation to approve the Major Transit
Development Plan update for FY-2006 through 2010.
The next item is item 12B. It's a closed attorney/client session to
be heard at 12 noon, and that will be in the shade. The notice is
hereby given that pursuant to Section 286.011, Parens 8 of the Florida
Statutes, the Board of County Commissioners will meet in executive
Page 3
June 28, 2005
session, closed attorney/client on Tuesday, June 28th, 2005, in the
commission conference room, the third floor of the West Harmon
Turner Building, Collier County Government Center, 3301 East
Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida.
The Board in executive session will discuss the settlement
proposal/litigation expense issues of the pending litigation case of
Collier County versus Lexington Insurance Company, Case Number
2:05-cv-216-FtM-33SPC, now pending in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers, Florida.
The next is item 12C, to be heard at one p.m. This is to discuss
the settlement offer from Lexington Insurance Company in reference
to the Collier County versus Lexington Insurance Company, and I just
stated the case number, and I won't do it again, now pending in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort
Myers, Florida, and give direction to the county attorney regarding the
litigation.
And this is of note for everybody in the audience today and
everybody that's home listening that's going to come in later this
afternoon. Item 10C will be heard at five p.m. and will be the last item
of the day.
This meeting is planned to be at least a day and a half. Whatever
transpires up until five p.m., if we finish the agenda, that's fine, if we
don't, those rest of the items will be continued until tomorrow morning
at nine a.m., and then we will start on item 10C, and that will be the
last item of the day.
It's a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
approve multiple road corridor alignment concepts in the North Belle
Meade area for long-range planning purposes and also approve
multiple corridors to be used in the short-term as truck haul routes.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
County Attorney, do you have any changes or comments?
Page 4
June 28, 2005
MR. WEIGEL: Couple comments, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
I understand item 16A2 is going to remain on the consent agenda.
However, I've been informed that there is a paragraph 14 revision to
be read into the record. I've not received that yet, and so at this point
in time, I would suggest that 16A2 potentially be moved to be item
10M so that very briefly by that time Cormac Giblin or the staff will
have provided the document that win be read into the record either by
staff or by myself so that this item is -- no longer has a question
relating to the conversion of rental units to condominium ownership
units.
So I might suggest at this point, unless someone has that
language that could be read in the record, that the item, in fact, be
moved from 16A2 to 10M so the reading in the record can occur at
that time very quickly.
Secondly, item 12B for the closed attorney session, I'll just
indicate that I'll be the attorney that will be present at the session with
the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Mudd, County Manager,
may be present if he wishes to, and that is the extent of the attendance
that will be at that session. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Commissioners, I'd like to get ex parte disclosure on the
summary agenda and also any changes you might wish to make to the
regular or consent agenda.
I'll start with Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning, Chairman. At this
point in time I don't have any ex parte to bring forth other than I asked
a few questions of staff on the summary agenda on a couple of items,
but I have no other ex parte.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I have no changes to the
agenda, and on the summary agenda, other than talking to staff, that's
the extent of my disclosure.
Page 5
June 28, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have absolutely nothing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have no declarations of ex
parte for the summary or consent agenda.
I do have a change, and that is, 1'd like to discuss 16E 1 on the
regular agenda, please.
And also I was wondering, on 8A, it was recommended that we
continue this to the July 26th meeting. Do we do that now, or how do
we do that?
MR. MUDD: You can -- you can do that -- you can do it at that
time when we get to 8A or you can do it right after you approve the
consent and summary agenda. You basically say, 8A, recommend
that it be approved or continued until the 26th of July.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Excuse me, Commissioner. Could
you repeat that item that you said you wanted to bring up for
discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. It's 16El.
MR. MUDD: And that is ION, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Leo, would you be so kind as to
turn on the speakers over here? Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I have no disclosures and no further
changes to the agenda.
Is there a motion to approve the regular agenda with the changes
as discussed, including the County Attorney's recommendation to
move 16A2 to 10M and Commissioner Fiala's request to move 16E1
to the regular agenda, and also to continue 8A?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Halas.
Page 6
June 28, 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 passes unanimously.
Page 7
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
June 28. 2005
Move Item 8B to 7B: This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU-2004-AR-6965, Kelly
Michele Smith, Project Planner for Davidson Engineering, Inc., representing
Florida Homes of Collier County, Inc., requests Section 2.04.03 of the Collier
County Land Development Code of the Estates Zoning District for the purpose of
a model home sales center. The property to be considered for the conditional use
is located at 12815 and 12825 Collier Boulevard being located at the Northwest
corner of 13th Avenue S.W. and Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), which is Unit 26,
Tract 118, Golden Gate Estates, in Section 15, Township 49 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County Florida. This property consists of 5 acres. (Staff's request.)
Move Item 17 A to 16C21: Adopt a Resolution authorizing a change to Water and
Wastewater Impact Fee Schedule Two of Appendix A, Ordinance 2001-13, as
amended, to correct scrivener's errors in order to correctly state the square
footage range in the assessment of residential water and wastewater impact fees
and to state that the minimum water impact fee is $2,760 for one (1) ERC. (Staff's
request.)
Time Certain Items:
Item 10B to be heard at 11 :30 a.m. Recommendation to approve the Major Transit
Development Plan Update, FY 2006-2010.
Item 12B (closed attorney-client) to be heard at 12:00 Noon: Notice is hereby
given that pursuant to Section 286.011 (8), Fla. Stat., the Board of County
Commissioners will meet in executive session (closed attorney-client) on
Tuesday, June 28,2005, in the Commission conference room, 3rd Floor, W.
Harmon Turner Building, Collier County Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami
Trail, Naples, Florida. The Board in executive session will discuss: Settlement
proposal/litigation expense issues of the pending litigation case of Collier County
v. Lexington Insurance Company, Case No. 2:05-cv-216-FtM-33SPC, now pending
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers,
Florida.
Item 12C to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. Discuss Settlement Offer from Lexington
Insurance Company in reference to Collier County v. Lexington Insurance
Company, Case No. 2:05-cv-216-FtM-33SPC, now pending in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers, Florida and give
direction to County Attorney regarding the litigation.
Item 10C to be heard at 5:00 p.m. and will be the last item of the day.
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve multiple road
corridor alignment concepts in the North Belle Meade area for long range planning
purposes, and also approve multiple corridors to be used in the short term as
truck haul routes.
June 28, 2005
Item #2B, #2C, #2D and #2E
MINUTES OF THE MAY 24, 2005 BCC REGULAR MEETING,
MINUTES OF THE JUNE 7, 2005 BCC/BEACH ACCESS
WORKSHOP MEETING, MINUTES OF THE JUNE 7, 2005
BCC/CYCLE I 2004 ADOPTION MEETING AND THE MINUTES
OF THE JUNE 8, 2005 BCC/LEGISLATIVE WORKSHOP-
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Now, do I hear a motion to approve the May 24th, BCC regular
meeting minutes --
Commissioner Halas: So--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- the June 7th, 2005, BCC beach access
workshop minutes; the June 7, 2005, BCC cycle one, 2004 adoption
hearing; the June 8th, 2005, BCC legislative workshop minutes?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So move.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Halas
to approve, second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #3
Page 8
June 28, 2005
SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD
MEMBERS) - PRESENTED
Mr. -- County Manager, we're now going to service awards.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, and you have -- and you have two today.
The first service award is a 25-year attendee award, and that -- are you
going to do it up there? There's just two, you can do it up there, and
she'll help you with the awards from that spot.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: From here, yeah, that's okay.
MR. MUDD: The first is a 25-year award for Mr. Ron Jamro.
He's the director of the museum.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Great job. Thank you.
Does he have a parking space?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Twenty-five-year employees should
have parking spaces.
MR. MUDD: Yeah, he did. He decided he'd put the tank on his
parking space.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have to take a picture here.
Thank you, Ron.
MR. MUDD: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next awardee is Luz Pietri from the library,
and it's a 30-year award.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hi. It's good to see you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
(Applause)
MR. MUDD: So that takes us to paragraph four, which is
proclamations.
Page 9
June 28, 2005
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION TO DESIGNATE JUNE 28, 2005 AS
NATIONAL HIV TESTING DAY - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The first proclamation is to
designate June 28th, 2005, as National HIV Testing Day, to be
accepted by Scott Tims, HIV program director for the Collier County
Health Department, and will be presented by Commissioner Coletta.
So is Scott Tims here?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Please, come up front. Yes,
bring everyone with you. Please, yes. We have a whole bunch of
smiling faces up here. Gosh knows where the rest of the day may go.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They won't be smiling faces, we know
that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Maybe we can get them to stay.
Whereas, every day 8,000 lives are lost to the global AIDS
pandemic. In our country, nearly one million people are infected with
HIV and approximately 40,000 more contract it each year; and,
Whereas, National HIV Testing Day is an opportunity for
Americans to increase their awareness of this terrible disease and to
get tested for HIV or AIDS. By working together to end this
pandemic, our nation's citizens contribute to a bright future for
themselves and for people around the world; and,
Whereas, new drugs and new treatments are bringing hope and
enhancing the quality of life for those who are affected by HIV or
AIDS. However, these advances can only help individuals if they
know their HIV status; and,
Whereas, approximately one-quarter of the people who are HIV
positive do not know they are carriers. Without knowing their status,
they cannot get treatment that they need and may unknowingly spread
Page 10
June 28, 2005
new infections; and,
Whereas, today testing is easier than ever. It is imperative those
at risk for HIV / AIDS get tested;
Whereas, we encourage the people of Collier County to support
the battle against HIV and AIDS. We also urge those at risk be tested
for the disease and learn more about how to end this health threat to
Collier County and around the world.
And, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that June 28th, 2005, be
designated as National HIV Testing Day.
Done and ordered this, the 28th day of June, 2005, Fred Coyle,
Chairman, and I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: A motion for approval by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Congratulations.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Does anyone wish to speak?
MR. TIMS: I'll speak for a moment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you don't have to.
MR. TIMS: Okay. I just want to thank you for your time today
and just remind everyone that we have testing all week. We'll be at
Page 11
June 28, 2005
River Park on Thursday night, we'll be at Golden Gate Friday night
and free testing at the health department today and tomorrow, and
there's also events going on in Immokalee. If anyone's interested, they
can call the health department for more information.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Item #4 B
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING PARTICIPATION OF
MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES MILITARY AND URGE
ALL CITIZENS, COMMUNITY BUSINESSES, SERVICE CLUBS
AND SCHOOLS TO BECOME INVOLVED AND SUPPORT OUR
MEN AND WOMEN IN THE ARMED SERVICES AND
CELEBRATE INDEPENDENCE DAY 2005 - ADOPTED
The next proclamation recognizes participation of members of
the United States Military and urges all the citizens, community
businesses, service clubs and schools to become involved and support
our men and women of the Armed Forces and celebrate Independence
Day 2005.
This proclamation will be accepted by John Veit, Parks and
Recreation Department. John?
You're going to get all the veterans up here, aren't you?
MR. VEIT: That's a good idea, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, it is.
Whereas, Collier County desires to acknowledge the July 4th
Independence Day celebration in a befitting manner --
Yeah, come on, guys.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You should be up there, too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I'm reading the proclamation, so I
-- I'll start all over again then.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let's you and 1.
Page 12
June 28, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm not a veteran.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hold on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All right, Frank.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll begin again.
Whereas, Collier County desires to acknowledge the July 4th
Independence Day celebration in a befitting manner; and,
Whereas, such a patriotic event should include representation by
our country's military; and,
Whereas, members of the county commission wish to express
their personal gratitude and heartfelt thanks to each of those citizens
so generous with their service; and,
Whereas, members of the United States Military Academy Band
Jazz Knight and U.S. Special Operations Command Parachute Team
have accepted an invitation from Collier County to perform during the
4th of July celebration; and,
Whereas, the first Monday in July 2005 has been designated as
Independence Day.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that it officially recognizes
participation of members of the United States Military and urges all
citizens, community businesses, service clubs and schools to become
more involved and support our men and women in the Armed Services
and celebrate Independence Day 2005.
Done and ordered this 28th day of June, 2005, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Fred Coyle, Chairman.
I make a motion to accept this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 13
June 28, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I want to see you jumping out of the
airplane.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want to be in the airplane
watching.
MS. FILSON: Commissioner, give him the proclamation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, okay. Wait a minute, stop, stop,
stop. Each of you take one of those proclamations. I'll be okay. Give
me a proclamation and I'll hold it from up here. I'll hold mine here.
MR. SCHMITT: There are more retired colonels than there is in
the bottom of a bag of popcorn.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we're just about as important.
MR. VEIT: Commissioners, on behalf of the military, we do
appreciate your support in this program. Mr. Ochs has kindly offered
to present these proclamation on July 2nd at the Philharmonic during
the concert, and we appreciate that as well.
Other than that, I'm very -- don't have a lot of words.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you, John.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, there are a series of events that are
going to transpire over this weekend. They'll be listed in the paper.
John, do you have them close at hand?
MR. VEIT: I can do it from memory.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Please, sir.
MR. VEIT: July 2nd, seven p.m., concert at Philharmonic Center
for the Arts; on the 3rd, there will be a parachute jump at four o'clock
in the afternoon and a concert at 4:30 at Everglades City; and then on
the 4th, there will be a nine o'clock jump at Gulfview Middle School,
Page 14
June 28, 2005
there will be a four o'clock jump at Sugden Regional Park, and a
concert at seven p.m., Sugden Regional Park.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Thank you very much, John.
You do a good job organizing these activities. Thank you.
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING JUNE 13-19,2005 AS MOTE
MARINE LABORATORY WEEK - ADOPTED
The next proclamation recognizes June 13th through 19th, 2005,
as Mote Marine Laboratory Week, and this proclamation will be
awarded by Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. And the -- I didn't get your
name, ma'am,
MS. BRICKER: Lisa Bricker.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Lisa, would you stand up here,
please.
I feel great about giving this proclamation. I feel very strongly
about our estuary system and also the Gulfhere.
Whereas, the Mote Marine Laboratory was created as a Cape
Haze Marine Laboratory in 1955 by Dr. Eugene (sic) Clark to teach
people about the sea, in a two-room, 240-square foot shed in Placida.
It was relocated to Siesta Key in 1960 and renamed Mote Marine
Laboratory in honor of its major benefactor, William R. Mote, before
moving in 1978 to its current headquarters in City Island, Sarasota;
and,
Whereas, world renowned Mote Marine Laboratory is one of the
few remaining independent marine research centers with more than
230 staff members, 40 of whom which have doctoral degrees, and
nearly 1,400 volunteers conducting marine research, education
projects, locally, and in more than 50 countries around the world; and,
Page 15
June 28, 2005
Whereas the laboratory currently has 200,000 square feet of
research, education, and public outreach space on its 10.5-acre campus
in City Island in Sarasota, as well as 200-acre inland aquaculture park
in Sarasota and field stations in Charlotte Harbor, the Florida Keys on
Key West and Summerland Key; and,
Whereas, Mote Marine Laboratory has performed significant
community service for the citizens of Collier County through
environmental, education, and scientific studies of Southwest Florida
bays, the contiguous rivers, streams, estuarine and gulf areas of Collier
Counties, and;
Whereas, Mote Marine Laboratory has answered the challenge of
educating the public about marine and estuarine ecosystems through
its public aquarium which hosts 40,000 visitors annually and its
education program, which reaches 50,000 students annually; and,
Whereas, Mote Marine Laboratory is celebrating 50 years of
advancing the science of the sea through research, education, and
community service.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Commissioners
of Collier County, Florida, that June 13th through the 19th, 2005, be
designated as Mote Marine Laboratory Week with June 13, 1955,
being the date of incorporation of the laboratory.
Done in this order, the 28th of June, 2005, Board of County
Commissioners, Fred W. Coyle, Chair, and I move this proclamation
be approved.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion for approval by Commissioner
Halas, second by Commissioner Henning.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 16
June 28, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is approved unanimously.
Congratulations.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The next proclamation--
MR. MUDD: I think we have somebody --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry. You get to speak. Okay. Go
ahead.
MS. BRICKER: Thank you. On behalf of our board of trustees
and our president, Dr. Cumlar Muhavidan (phonetic), I want to thank
you for acknowledging Mote's work. We do have 400,000 visitor go
through our aquarium yearly, so we appreciate your interest in our
work, and we invite you all to Sarasota to come to the aquarium and to
take a look around and please visit our website, www.mote.org.It·s
been revamped, and you can go in the shark tank and take a little
dolphin trip and have a wonderful time. So thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HALAS; Thank you very much.
Item #4 D
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JULY 6, 2005 AS AUSTIN
GRAY DAY - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The next proclamation designates July
the 6th, 2005, as Austin Gray Day, to be accepted by Dianne Gray,
Austin Gray's mother. It will be presented by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's my privilege to read this, really.
Proclamation: Whereas, Austin Thomas Gray was born on
January 16th, 1991, to an active family, and as he grew, learned to
love outdoor recreation; and,
Page 1 7
June 28, 2005
Whereas, early in life, Austin developed a disease called
N eurodegeration with Brain Iron Accumulation, or NBIA, which
began to affect his ability to participate in outdoor activities with his
peers; and,
Whereas, Austin's mother, Dianne, approached the Collier
County Parks and Recreation Department in 1998 asking that
recreation programs be developed that could accommodate children
like her son; and,
Whereas, from the first splash day in 1998 until now, the
Therapeutic Recreation Program offered by the parks and recreation
department has grown to serve over 175 children and offers a variety
of activities; and,
Whereas, Austin succumbed to his disease on February 25th,
2005; and,
Whereas, as the spark behind the Therapeutic Recreation
Program, Austin remains an inspiration to parents, care and service
providers, and his peers, that all children, no matter what their
function level, should lead lives full of growth, wonder, and good
old-fashioned fun.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that July, 6th, 2005, be
designated as Austin Gray Day.
Done and ordered this 28th day of June, 2005, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Fred Coyle, Chairman.
Commissioner, I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala, second by Commissioner Henning.
All in favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 18
June 28, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Dianne, this is your proclamation.
Turn so we can have a picture with you. Would you like all of your
supporters up here for the next picture? Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All the supporters come up.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: First take one with Dianne, then
we'll get everybody up.
All those that came out to support Dianne, why not come up.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who's the young man?
MS. GRAY: He's in camp right. Lynn Clark is the director, and
he is a camp participant this summer.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Great.
MS. GRAY: Mr. Coyle and the rest of the Board of County
Commissioners, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for this.
To those of you that asked a few questions while I was up there,
Lynn Clark is the current director for Therapeutic Rec. and the
programming for special needs in this county.
I was blessed -- and I'm trying not to tear up. I'll do my best. I
was blessed to be Austin's mother. It was my honor to be his mom,
and also it's a great honor to serve the children of Collier County,
especially those children whose parents may not have access to the
programming that we did.
Austin was born normal. We had everything and enjoyed
everything that Collier County has to offer, beach, rec., tennis, we did
it all, we played it all. We just happened to -- Austin had a disease
that -- genetic disease that affected him physically.
What happened was we received a flier from Lee County one
summer in the mail, come join our special needs programming. And
when I went to the county to the parks and recreation department and I
Page 19
June 28, 2005
said, I cannot physically navigate taking my son back and forth to Lee
County, because I was also the mother of a beautiful little girl, I can't
take him to Lee County every day for camp.
And through one conversation to another, we developed the idea
for this splash day. And then from there, it grew to a week, and then
from there to eight or nine weeks now for the past few years. Lynn
Clark is -- she's amazing, Donna Scully, another amazing individual,
who they've just taken this camp from a little baby step seed program
and into what it is today.
And again, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for serving
the children of Collier County, and especially those special needs
children who need a lot of voices, and they need many hands and
many feet to ensure that they have a quality of life that you and I
enJoy.
I thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you for what you do.
(Applause.)
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
OUTSTANDING MEMBER AWARD TO MARK MORTON OF
THE SMART GROWTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE-
PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to paragraph 5,
which is presentations, and the first presentation today is a
presentation of the Advisory Committee Outstanding Member Award,
and that, for the month of July, is to Mr. Mark Morton of the Smart
Growth Advisory Committee.
If Mr. Morton could come forward, please.
(Applause.)
Page 20
June 28, 2005
MR. MUDD: Mr. Mark Morton was one of the original 12
members appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. Over the
past four years, all other original members have gone elsewhere.
Mark is the lone-standing original person on the committee and
with him, he basically brings a tenure and a -- and the original charter.
Mark has been the chairman of the Collier County Smart Growth
Advisory Committee for the past two years. Mark's volunteer resume
also includes, but is not limited to, the Coconut River Estates
Community Association, the Greater Naples Civic Association
President's Council, the Florida Chamber of Commerce, the Urban
Land Institute Southwest Florida District Council Executive
Committee, the Rookery Bay Coastal Institute Advisory Committee,
the Collier Smart Growth Task Force Steering Committee, and the
Naples Area Chamber of Commerce.
As an employee of Barron Collier Company, Mark is familiar
with the fast-growing, ever-changing needs and desires of the
developers and builders and the community of Southwest Florida.
Mark has played a critical role in the modification of both the Growth
Management Plan language and the Land Development Code
language to implement the importance of smart growth in our
community.
Due to the importance of the Growth Management Plan and Land
Development Code in Collier County, the language for the Collier
County Smart Growth Advisory Committee has lobbied to implement
will be the most cost effective for builders, contractors, developers,
and the community and all the associations of Collier County in that
the committee strives to create a smoother transition to a planned unit
development stage and the options therein contained; however, with
the many hours the committee has a whole has given, including
Mark's four-year tenure, they have saved Collier County government
many labor hours, as the committee does a lot of work the planning
staff with very little direction, and in some cases they give direction to
Page 21
June 28, 2005
our planning staff, and that's good.
And ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to present to you the advisory
committee member for the month of July, Mr. Mark Morton.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Congratulations, Mark.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mark, would you like to say anything?
MR. MORTON: I'm very shy. I just want to thank a couple of
my members on the committee, Bob Murray and Brett Moore, who
took time out of their day to come here and support me, and wife and
daughter, and Sam Tucker, who did all of the hard work behind the
scenes for us, and, of course, Commissioner Henning, who was our
guiding light as our commissioner. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Mark.
(Applause.)
Item #5B
RECOGNIZING CHUCK DIEHL, TELECOMMUNICATIONS
ANALYST, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION, AS
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR JUNE. 2005 - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next presentation is to Mr.
Chuck Diehl, and he's a Telecommunications Analyst in the
Administrative Services Division, and he is the Employee of the
Month for June of2005.
If Mr. Diehl could come forward, please.
MR. MUDD: Chuck--
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Chuck has successfully accomplished major
departmental telecommunications transfers for the transportation,
community development, utilities, and administrative services division
in his tenure with Collier County. Along with the county manager's
Page 22
June 28, 2005
agency, Chuck has provided new and upgraded telephone equipment
for several constitutional and state agencies as well.
Chuck always makes himself available to work after hours in
order to implement technology upgrades without interruption to
telephone service during normal working hours.
Chuck has attended A vaya telephone switch training and works
closely with this telephone system vendor to continually learn
additional features and troubleshooting procedures to solve problems
quickly without involving the vendor.
Chuck has also attended Team Building and Account Team
seminars provided through the Florida Institute of Government. He
continues to attend computer training classes to ensure his
understanding of his customers' technology needs and their
requirements.
Chuck has implemented recommendations that resulted in costs
savings to the county. For example, he had the wiring vendor use
patch panels instead of punch blocks, making the wiring of telephones
more efficient and cost effective. He is very well organized and
informed of section needs so that outside vendors can be utilized as
needed to ensure a continuous high level of customer service and
satisfaction.
Chuck consistently exceeds expectations, and this is reflected in
his numerous written and verbal compliments he receives from the
state attorney's office, health department, clerk of courts, property
appraiser, community development, and emergency management, to
list just a few. Chuck is the county's sole employee providing
telecommunication service.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to present Chuck Diehl, the
Employee of the Month of June, 2005.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Chuck.
MR. MUDD: Thanks, Chuck. Thanks for everything.
Page 23
June 28, 2005
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY BETH NELSON TO DISCUSS
EXEMPTION TO THE LDC AS REQUESTED BY A DEVELOPER
- TO BE PLACED ON A FUTURE BCC AGENDA
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to paragraph 6A,
which is a public petition request by Beth Nelson to discuss
exemptions to the LDC as requested by a developer.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Ms. Nelson?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I do have a question. Is this -- does this
relate to something that's on today's agenda?
MS. NELSON: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Will it be on a future agenda?
MS. NELSON: I hope so.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I just think more properly it
should be addressed at that point in time, but please go ahead.
MS. NELSON: Well, that's why I'm here, to see that it is on
separate -- on an agenda as a separate item.
But good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is
Beth Nelson. I live on Lakeland Avenue in Armadillo Estates, located
just north of Willoughby Acres.
I'm here this morning to bring before you concerns that I share
with many residents in my neighborhood. Some of these concerned
residents live on this section of Lakeland Avenue, and some live in
homes that back up to the proposed development.
First let me explain that the section of Lakeland Avenue located
within Armadillo Estates is a private road. The residents along
Lakeland Avenue own the property to the center of the road, okay.
We have deeds and tax records that demonstrate ownership.
Page 24
June 28, 2005
The proposed development on the parcel, number 57, purchased
in 2003, is zoned RSF-3. Zoning is not the issue here, but rather the
fact that the section of Lakeland Avenue is a private road.
Two sections of the Land Development Code address subdivision
of property that does not adjoin a public roadway. LDC section
6.06.01C states that every subdivision or development shall have legal
and adequate access to a street dedicated for public use which has
been accepted for maintenance by or dedicated to the State of Florida
or the county as described in chapter 10.
Section 10.02.053 of the Land Development Code states, access
to public roads, the street system of a subdivision approved pursuant
to this section shall be connected to a public road, which is state or
county maintained.
The plans submitted by developer -- by the developer do not
show a roadway dedicated to the county or that this road will be
county maintained. The plans do show a road that partially overlaps
our private road and that lacks the dedicated access easement on the
west side, our side of the street.
Section 6.01 of the Land Development Code displays a table that
demonstrates what is required for a road. It shows 60 foot. It's
unclear to us how legal and adequate access has been established, or
will be established.
In the packet of information I provided for you details of the
application process where outlined. Review of application number
5969, the following comment was made on the last page: Number
four, the right to use the west half of Lakeland Avenue still must be
established in order to approve the plans as currently approved.
The next application, number 7457, requests an exemption to the
Land Development Code, Section 6.0.1 L, stating that partial -- half
our partial streets shall not be permitted. I could read the Land
Development section if you'd like me to.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, that won't be necessary.
Page 25
June 28, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No.
MS. NELSON: Okay. As far as I've been told, no new
application has yet been submitted, but we're being told that now this
exemption's no longer required, and we don't understand how these
plans can be approved under the circumstances.
At this point we would respectfully like to ask the Board --
request the Board to direct the county attorney to look into the legality
and adequacy of this access and to place this item on a Board agenda
as a separate item, not on a consent agenda, so that we could address it
at that time if necessary, then we would like to be notified at that time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Could I have Russell Budd,
he's -- I believe this is the gentleman that's involved in this project, to
maybe give us some insight. I believe that's already been addressed in
regards to access to that property at this point.
MR. BUDD: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Russell Budd. I'm the managing partner of the group that has
purchased and is in the process of seeking a site development plan for
this property.
Weare still in the review -- administrative review process at
development services. And, if anything, we're getting special
treatment (sic), as I have been rejected three times and am now in for
my fourth attempt at satisfying all the relevant county codes and
standards for this parcel. And I have every expectation that the Land
Development Code will be complied with before any site development
plan is approved.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If there's any questions about
the interpretation of the Land Development Code, it is the planning
Page 26
June 28, 2005
director to determine that, and you may do that or the Board may
direct to -- for an official interpretation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is this likely to come before the Board
for decision, or is this something that will be done under existing
codes, approved by the planning director?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe it has to come before us
on the consent agenda as the final plat.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it can't come before us on the
consent agenda as long as there's an objection.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's true.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So there's no way it can get on the
consent agenda at this point in time.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator of
Community Development/Environmental Services Division.
Commissioners, this project has undergone what we call a
primary subdivision plat process. It still has to come before you as an
agenda item for final plat. It will be placed -- at your direction,
certainly, we will place it as a regular agenda item. I will certainly
notify Ms. Nelson in regards to the -- when this item will come in for
final approval, and any objections certainly can be rendered at that
time. So it will be a scheduled item on a future agenda when, in fact,
it's ready for final approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And once objections have been raised,
you can't put it on a consent agenda.
MR. SCHMITT: I will not put it on the consent agenda. It will
go on a regular agenda item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it -- yes, County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. I'd just like to add to Joe, is that all
plats are reviewed for legal sufficiency, which is a rather
comprehensive review regarding dedications, access, just about
anything you can think of related to the plat, some that may provide
some assurance in the process as well.
Page 27
June 28, 2005
MR. SCHMITT: And the major issue here has been the access.
And the design of the access road in order not to encroach on what has
been identified, it's not a recorded easement, and the applicant was
making modifications, so they do not encroach into that easement. So
at that time certainly the final design will be available for review and
comment, as the county attorney mentioned, and it will be reviewed
completely for legal sufficiency in regards to all applications of the
code.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you very much.
MS. NELSON: Thank you.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY T ARI HARRIS TO DISCUSS
THE HANGING OF "FRONT PORCH COMMUNITY" SIGNS IN
IMMOKALEE - DIRECT STAFF TO APPROPRIATELY PLACE
SIGNS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next public
petition, which is 6B. It's a public petition request by Tari Harris to
discuss the hanging of Front Porch Community signs in Immokalee.
MS. HARRIS: Good morning, Chairman Coyle and County
Commissioners. For the record, I'm Tari Harris. I'm the community
liaison for the governor's Front Porch Florida Program in Immokalee.
That's where the designated community is in this county.
And the 20 designated Front Porch Communities around the
state, most of them have very elaborate street signs designating when
you're coming into those Front Porch Communities. We haven't gotten
to that point yet because I'm involved in the planning of the visioning
process for Immokalee and so forth and don't want to create any
obstacle for that. But the signs are just -- oh, there you -- oh, thank
you.
Page 28
June 28, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's quite all right.
MS. HARRIS: I wasn't able to talk with you. I'm just getting
back from Atlanta late last night.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're doing fine.
MS. HARRIS: Thank you. Anyways, those are the signs. There
are two of them.
And the west boundary of the Front Porch Community is at
Hancock Street and Main. Main Street is the northern border for the
Front Porch Community, Hancock is the west border, and the east is
really like 29, all of those small streets inside, around the casino, and
the southern boundary would be probably as far south as what they
call self-help, which Commissioner Coletta would probably be able to
help you with.
But the first access road going into the Front Porch Community
at the south is Bethune, and we would like to have it hung there at that
intersection. It's just, you know, what goes into one way. But we
would like to have it there, if that would be all right. So I'm here to
assist you in any way. We'd really appreciate having the signs there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. As Tari Harris is the noted
community leader in Immokalee, and her request is fairly reasonable, I
wonder if we might be able to direct staff to, where appropriately, put
these signs. There's two of them. One's here, another one's leaning up
against the wall. They'll look a lot better in Immokalee than they
would in my office where they've been for the last couple of weeks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ifwe could put one of the impeach
Coletta signs right beside that one.
MR. MUDD: Sir, we can -- we can -- I just talked with Mr.
Feder. Mr. Feder will-- we will do the best we can to get those
particular signs put up.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Mudd. I appreciate yourl
Page 29
June 28, 2005
assistance. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2004-254: DECLARING A VACANCY ON THE
PUBLIC VEHICLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 9A. It is a
recommendation to declare a vacancy on the Public Vehicle Advisory
Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
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: It passes unanimously. Thank you.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2005-255: APPOINTING RAYMOND PERRINE TO
THE BA YSHORE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
Page 30
June 28, 2005
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 9B. It's an
appointment of member to the Bayshore Beautification MSTU
Advisory Committee.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The committee recommendation
is Raymond Perrine. What is the pleasure of the board?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2005-256: APPOINTING LARRY DEAN
MIESZCAK TO THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE
ENFORCEMENT BOARD - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 9C. It's
appointment of a member to the Collier County Code Enforcement
Board.
Page 31
June 28, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have one vacancy and one applicant.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
MR. MUDD: Motion carries?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion carries unanimously, sorry.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2005-257: APPOINTING LAWRENCE M. BA YTOS
TO THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next item is 9D, which is appointment of a
member to the Collier Government Productivity Committee (sic).
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd like to make a motion to
appoint Brad Boaz. And I know that we all have received a lot of
correspondence on that. I know it is different than the committee's
recommendations. The reasoning for my motion is, I feel that it
would be a better balance, and Mr. Boaz would serve the committee
well.
Page 32
June 28, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta seconds.
Is there another nomination?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we nominate
Lawrence M. Baytos, who went through the selection committee on
the productivity committee, and normally we trust all the applicants
that are put forth on -- before us by others groups, so I --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a second to Commissioner Halas'
motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, yes, if this is like for an
alternate or something?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. We're taking -- right now we're
taking nominations, and then we're going to vote on the nominations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's to preclude just, you know, the
first person jumping in and making a --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- nomination, then that person
automatically gets the nomination.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're taking nominations. Okay. You're
going to second Commissioner Halas' nomination.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we have two nominations.
And if there are no others, we'll close the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I had one more if I
might.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, sure. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And this man's name is Steven
Michael Krohn, and I'll nominate him. So that will give us like three
people to look at?
Page 33
_.._,_.._---",..,~
June 28, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Then let's -- we'll vote
on them in sequence, and the person with the highest number of votes
gets selected.
We'll vote now on Brad Boaz.
All in favor of Brad Boaz, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
And I think that is two votes for, and three against.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Actually, I voted for.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You did, okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because we can vote for more than
one, right?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can if you'd like to. You can vote
for as many as like. So it is three votes for, two against.
The next candidate is Lawrence Baytos.
All in favor of Lawrence Baytos, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
All opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It's 3-2.
And Steven Michael Krohn.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 34
June 28, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there -- and all opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It looks like 3 -- 4-1. One for and four
against. Okay.
Now we'll have to choose between Brad Boaz and Lawrence
Baytos. We'll vote now for Brad Boaz.
All in favor of Brad Boaz, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, by like sign.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it is two for, three against.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Lawrence Baytos, all in favor of him,
please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The nomination goes to
Lawrence Baytos a vote of3-2 (sic).
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, you voted for, didn't you?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. I don't see any other
choice.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I didn't want to -- it's a
Page 35
June 28, 2005
member that I feel that's going to be a member.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Four to one, very well. And I would like
to say that I think that Brad Boaz is an exceptionally qualified
candidate, but the Productivity Committee specifically said they were
looking for someone with human resources experience, and
recognizing that as a requirement by the Productivity Committee and
having some trust in their judgment, I find that Lawrence Baytos is the
applicant among all of those who has the most recent human resources
expenence.
So the -- Lawrence Baytos is appointed as the member to the
productivity committee. Okay.
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2005-258: APPOINTING MITCHELL A. ROBERTS
TO THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 9E, and it's
appointment of a member to the Ochopee Fire Control District
Advisory Committee.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The committee's recommendation
is Mitchell A. Roberts.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion for approval by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Halas.
Commissioner Henning, did you want to speak, or is that left
over from last time?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Left over from last time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. My mistake. Thank you.
All in favor of Mitchell Roberts, please signify by saying aye.
Page 36
June 28, 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: Then Mitchell Roberts is appointed
unanimously.
Item #9F
RESOLUTION 2005-259: DECLARING A PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR
THE SOLICITATION OF DONATIONS AND THE RECEIPT OF
DONATIONS TO CONSTRUCT A FREEDOM MEMORIAL FOR
COLLIER COUNTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACTION OF
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AT ITS
REGULARLY SCHEDULED APRIL 26, 2005 MEETING -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 9F. It's a
resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County
declaring a public purpose for the solicitation of donations and the
receipt of donations to construct a freedom memorial for Collier
County in accordance with the action of the Board of County
Commissioners at its regularly scheduled April 26th, 2005, meeting.
And this item was asked for by Commissioner Coyle.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioners, just a bit of
explanation. This does not imply or obligate the county to provide
funding for the construction of the memorial. It merely declares that it
is a public purpose and that we can do things such as advertising and
approaching organizations to solicit donations.
Page 37
June 28, 2005
So Commissioner Halas, you have a question?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I'm glad that you brought
this forth. I think this is the proper way of doing this. I know that we
voted for this memorial, but hopefully that -- the bulk of the funds that
are coming forth will be brought forth by citizens and hopefully by a
lot of us that were veterans.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And firefighters that are presently
retired down here and police officers who retired in this area. I think
it's a great idea.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Is there a 501C-3 umbrella
here?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There is. It isn't in the Veterans Council.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So that means any donations would
be tax deductible?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That is my understanding, yes. But we
have met with the Veterans Council and representatives of the fire and
police departments and the unions of those organizations, and they are
very anxious to get started raising some funds for the memorial itself.
So they will -- they will obviously -- the funds will come into a
number of different organizations, and those organizations will
account for them in the way they normally account for all of their
funds.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So that means all that are excited
about donating can start doing that because it is tax deductible. All
right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's my understanding. Is that your
understanding, David?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think that the best tax advice for anyone
that's making a donation is to talk directly with that 501 C-3
organization, because they're versed and they know exactly what they
Page 38
June 28, 2005
can do with the money in regard to turning it over to the county for
this public purpose stated matter.
And so whoever is donating and should use the 501C-3
organization, whichever it may be, they'll tell them exactly what to do
and should received from them any papers that might assist them in
their filing.
Another question may come up, what about donations straight to
the county in case you wanted to ask that question or raise it, and if
money should come straight to the county sent to Board of County
Commissioners' office, as an example, or to any county department
earmarked for that, we would hope to be working with the clerk as the
custodian depository of moneys to assist in that regard.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you know, we might want to
establish some internal procedure to make sure we handle that
properly rather than having it go to a lot of different departments and
trying to coordinate it. We might really want it to go directly to the
clerk if we establish an account of some kind.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, we're working on that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Now, to bring you up
to date, we did vote earlier to allocate some funds for the purpose of
evaluating the construction costs and the design and that sort of thing,
and that will determine how much -- how many funds we will need to
construct this memorial, and that figure should be available to us
within the next few weeks, I believe.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And so whenever we know what it's
going to cost, then the organizations are going to begin fundraising in
earnest, and so we should have that procedure established pretty
quickly so that we can properly account for this money.
MR. WEIGEL: That's very correct. And as you noted with this
resolution as well, that the board and the county on behalf of the board
can provide notice whether it's through advertisement or other notice,
Page 39
June 28, 2005
means of communication to the public and veterans and service
groups, retired people, firemen, police, et cetera, so that they'll know
exactly what to do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you very much.
Is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the
resolution.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, motion to
approve, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just a FYI, we're fortunate
enough to have a member in the county attorney staff who is a part of
is some fundraising for memorializing Flight 93. This effort is from
coast to coast, and I hope that maybe at a further time that we can
bring this item up as a public benefit of the county and maybe bring
both those activities together.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. That sounds good to me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who's that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pat White.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did we take a vote on that?
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 40
June 28, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Thank you.
Item #10A
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE JOHNSON ENGINEERING,
INC. AS A QUALIFIED FIRM AND AWARD A CONTRACT
UNDER ITQ 04-3583 "CEI SERVICES FOR COLLIER COUNTY
ROAD PROJECTS" FOR PROJECT NO. 60018 "IMMOKALEE
ROAD PROJECT FROM COLLIER BLVD. TO 43RD AVE. N.E." IN
THE AMOUNT OF $1.089.810.74 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is lOA. It's a recommendation to approve Johnson Engineering,
Inc., as a qualified firm and award a contract under ITQ 04-3583, CEI
Services for Collier County road projects for Project Number 60018,
which is the Immokalee Road project from Collier Boulevard to 43rd
Avenue Northeast in the amount of$1,089,810.74.
And Mr. Norman Feder, your Administrator for Transportation
Services, will present.
MR. FEDER: Thank you, Jim.
Very quickly. Johnson Engineering is providing the CEI, or
Construction Engineering Inspection Services, on the Immokalee
Road project from 951 to 43rd.
As you know, when we first started out on this, we were looking
at four, and we're moving towards modifying that to a six-lane
cross-section, which we've done, so we knew initially that we didn't
want to pull the full CEI services into the original contract, as we
typically do.
Weare coming back to you now that we've gone to the six lane,
and we are going to go through this portion of the CEI and one more
to follow, given that this project is over quite a few years, and rather
Page 41
June 28, 2005
than tying up all the budget money at one time, we're doing that in
increments, again, first because we were changing the scope on the
proj ect and wanted to see if that went through and work with it, and
now on budgeting to put through increments as we go through.
So this is the second increment of it. We're utilizing Johnson
Engineering. There's been a little change in our purchasing process,
but fortunately that process, they are still qualified and are the
appropriate firm to continue the CEI on this proj ect.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any questions?
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. This has all been worked out
through the clerk's office; we're not going to have a repeat of the last
one, right?
MR. FEDER: No. This has all been worked out through the
clerk's office and coordinated very well with them. They were very
helpful in getting this --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wonderful. Then I make a motion
to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta (sic),
and Commissioner Halas has a question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I was going to make the
motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, you were going to make the motion,
okay. She beat you to it.
Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 42
June 28, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous.
Item #10D
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD A CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,800,000 TO JOHN
CARLO, INC. FOR CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS TO
GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD, FROM GOLDEN GATE
PARKWAY TO POMPEI LANE, PROJECT NO. 60005, BID NO.
05-3851-APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item.
1 DB is at 11 :30 time certain. 10C is at five p.m. time certain.
Our next item is 10D, which is a recommendation to award a
construction contract in the amount of $15,800,000 to John Carlo,
Inc., for capacity improvements to Goodlette-Frank Road from
Golden Gate Parkway to Pompei Lane, Project Number 60005, Bid
Number 05-3851.
And again, Mr. Norman Feder, your Administrator for
Transportation Services, will present.
MR. FEDER: Thank you, Jim.
This is the widening of the next section of Goodlette- Frank Road
construction. It has two major milestones in it, as we had presented to
you previously.
The first milestone is basically from the Golden Gate Parkway
intersection including what will be the free-flow right that will come
Page 43
June 28, 2005
in behind the bank that will establish the westbound to northbound
free- flow right allowing the overall intersection at grade to be
designed to handle the demands as the new I - 75 interchange overpass
and other improvements on the Golden Gate corridor come to pass.
This will be -- and this first stage will be from Golden Gate up to
the entrance to Wilderness where we're putting in a signal to step up
progression along the corridor. And that first phase is to be
completed, it's very aggressive, by Thanksgiving of this year
acknowledging that, one, we have the overpass and other issues
coming forward, but more importantly, that we're right out there by
the mall at an intersection that we need to get out of very quickly. So
we set that up as the first milestone.
From Thanksgiving of this year to Thanksgiving a year later, in
'06, is the rest of the work, which will go from that entrance to
Wilderness up to Pompei, or just south of Pine Ridge where the prior
project ends.
Weare also working very closely with the city. Weare actually
funding the replacement of their reuse line because we're impacting it
as part of our project, and they have requested that they want to put in
some additional water line and force main. They are going to fund
that, and so our project here includes that, with the assumption that
their moneys are forthcoming to cover those components. So that
does come into our construction schedule as well to meet the city's
needs.
We are, as part of this project -- I'll just remind you -- removing
the signal at Royal Poinciana. So in case someone wants to ask that, I
though I'd jump out ahead of it a little bit, or if the public wants to
remember that, yes, it's still on our agenda to do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That was basically my question,
was, were you going to address the Royal Poinciana, and do we feel
that the city's going to meet these commitments as we move into the
Page 44
June 28, 2005
construction of this roadway?
MR. FEDER: Yes, we do. They went through an emergency
effort to develop the design work to get it into our project, so I would
imagine that they'll follow through on Royal Poinciana.
Again, we may be about spring of next year before the signal
comes out, based on the construction schedule, but it will come out as
part of this construction. And I'm sure we provided, this board,
100,000 to the city as an assist on the Burning Tree improvements,
and I would hope that the city would move forward on that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And just for clarification, the signal will
come out at the time that the roads are linked at Burning Tree Drive,
right, providing --
MR. FEDER: Our intent is to do everything we can to
coordinate a smooth transition there, but I will tell you, if the city
doesn't move on Burning Tree improvements, we would still take this
signal out and assume that they're going to get access to Burning Tree.
But obviously we're going to try to work with them in every way we
can.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, two things, please. First of all,
but that light doesn't come out in this phase, right?
MR. FEDER: Not in the first phase. It would be in the second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Just for clarification.
MR. FEDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Secondly, do you have any
incentives or penalties tied into this very aggressive completion date?
MR. FEDER: Yes, we do, on both milestones.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
Then I make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala.
Page 45
June 28, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta.
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.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #10E
A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING $1,887,984 IN
GRANT REVENUE FROM THE FLORIDA COMMUNITIES
TRUST AS REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE
BAREFOOT BEACH OUTPARCEL, APPROPRIATING $300,000
TO FULFILL REQUIREMENTS OF THE GRANT AND
APPROPRIATING THE BALANCE TO FUND CAPITAL
ELEMENTS OF BEACH ACCESS PROJECTS - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item,
which is 10E. It's a recommendation to approve a budget amendment
recognizing $1,887,984 in grant revenue from the Florida Community
(sic) Trust as a reimbursement for the purchase of the Barefoot Beach
outparcel, appropriating $300,000 to fulfill requirements of the grant,
and appropriating the balance to fund capital elements of beach access
projects.
Page 46
June 28, 2005
Ms. Marla Ramsey, your Administrator for Public Services, will
present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: A motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great presentation, Marla.
MR. MUDD: Thanks, Marla.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Winning.
Item #10F
A DEVELOPERS CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH W AL-
MART/GATEWAY, WCI COMMUNITIES, INC., AND
STONEBREAK HOMES, LLC AKA RIMAR TO DESIGN,
PERMIT AND CONSTRUCT ROADWAY AND INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS ON SR 951, THE INTERSECTION OF US
41/SR 951 AND SR 951 NORTH OF HENDERSON CREEK TO
APPROXIMATELY 1300' NORTH OF US 41 - APPROVED
Page 47
--'"-"~>'-"'~---'.<-"-
June 28, 2005
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 1 OF. It's a
recommendation to approve a developer contribution agreement with
Wal-Mart/Gateway, WCI Communities, Inc., and Stonebreak Homes,
LLC, a/kia, Rimar, to design, permit, and construct roadway and
intersection improvements on State Road 951, the intersection of U.S.
41, State Road 951, and State Road 951 north of Henderson Creek, to
approximately 1,300 feet north of U.S. 41.
And Mr. Norman Feder, your Administrator for Transportation
Services, will present.
MR. FEDER: Commissioners, we were asked to bring this back
to the board based on a change from the prior approach on the
developer contribution agreement where we were going to receive the
funds from the developers and construct the section of roadway.
In this developer contribution agreement, it provides for them to
go out and build the section of roadway. We will reserve the capacity
that they will generate, and they can only utilize it or get actually
certificates of occupancy when and if they've completed the
improvements.
I will tell you the improvements are basically the six-laning of
951 from the southern boundary of basically the Wal-Mart site,
through the intersection and north for a distance for merge.
The key is along this corridor where we are right now stopped by
our concurrency process because we do not have sufficient capacity of
the intersection, is the controlling factor in great extent, and so that's
what we're doing. We're dealing with an intersection project.
Even if we wanted to extend further south, we'd have difficulty
because it is on the state highway system. You have to go through the
process of their project development environment study, so that's one
of the reasons it doesn't extend further; however, the improvement,
we've looked at it very conservatively, will not only address the very
Page 48
June 28, 2005
minor backlog that we have right now, and then we stopped
everything, under our concurrency system, addressed the trips to be
generated from these developments, but also provide just under 200
additional peak hour trips.
Now, I say conservatively because the state's decision not to
allow the signal where it was initially being proposed, but rather
moving that south also helps the intersection's operations, and there's
some fear that there may be additional capacity in there, but we want
to come to you with the most conservative approach.
We understand that this is an interim improvement in the sense
that it addresses the fact that we are, under concurrency, not able to
provide any more trips on the system until additional capacity's
provided. This does provide capacity, as I have noted, beyond what
these three developments will consume on a peak hour, but it doesn't
provide long-term solution.
Weare working with the state right now which controls three of
the four quadrants, u.s. 41 and 951 south of 41. They are doing what
is called a proj ect development environment, or PD&E study,
including this intersection and are working with us to expedite that
study to define what that long-term improvement might be, which may
well be -- and yes, I said it, grade separation.
And so with that in mind, these improvements will carry us
probably until we have an idea of what that option may be, which is
about, probably a year away that we'll know exactly what will be the
approach because we can't predetermine the state study, and then
probably in the vicinity of about seven years plus before we could
actually make any ultimate improvement that may come out of -- be
defined by that study.
So it gives us some relief for a period of time. Again, that period
of time we told you is not that long with the very fast and growing
development that's occurring in this area.
Again though, our system, once those additional trips are used
Page 49
June 28, 2005
up, will not allow any more development until we come to either some
other interim improvement or the ultimate improvement.
And with that, I'm open to any question the board has. We have
put in the DCA provisions that they can't start construction until after
April and that they can't have a CO until the actual work is done and
complete and approved as meeting our standards and conditions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes. I think Commissioner
Halas was first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas, okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I just want -- Norm, just
wanted to make sure that we emphasize that this contribution that the
developers are coming forth with in regards to improving this
intersection, this is only an improvement whereby this takes care of
the capacity that they're going to be generating on this corridor; is that
correct?
MR. FEDER: It actually provides a little more. It takes care of a
very small backlog and gives us -- and we said very conservative, and
I want to stay conservative -- about 200 additional peak hour trips
beyond what they will consume, and that's assuming it's all consumed
right away from their development, so it will be a little bit beyond. It's
also being funded by them above and beyond their impact fees. They
are still required to pay their full impact fees for the developments.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Halas.
MS. FILSON: I have two speakers only if commissioners have
questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta.
And Commissioner Fiala has a question.
Page 50
June 28, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I have another -- first -- a
number of them actually. First one, I just wanted to clarify, you said
that -- I had asked you in my office and you repeated today, but I just
wanted it to be on the record loud and clear, the reason -- I was
concerned because the road didn't go farther south. It only went like
to the entrance ofWal-Mart, and you had explained that it's kind of
like a pig going through a snake. If you fix that intersection, it will
release all of the rest of the traffic.
MR. FEDER: I hadn't given as good an explanation, but, yes,
that's about it, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I just wanted to make sure
that they're -- that was clear. Now, I wanted to know how long will
these improvements last? You had mentioned a short time, and then
you said, but when a permanent fix comes in, even if -- you know, in
an ambitious manner, it would take seven years. What happens
between when this temporary fix is completed and this seven years,
you know, and there's no improvements for seven years?
MR. FEDER: First what I will tell you is, again, this one
provides an additional, as I said, very conservatively, about 200 peak
trips. How long it will last depends upon how quickly development
comes in and consumes that.
But I will tell you a year or two, given the way things are going
down there, it could be very quick, but we will then stop it under our
concurrency system, whatever that is, if it's day one or if it's three
years out. So I don't want to mislead you. It's not long-term,
especially with the growth down there.
As far as the date, it depends when development comes in and
seeks authorization to move forward and we evaluate whether or not
we have the capacity. So that's the schedule on that end.
On the other end, what I'm looking at is about a year before we'd
have the proj ect development environment study and information
from the state as to what the ultimate is, then we have to coordinate
Page 51
June 28, 2005
with them on funding options and issues. We do have the design, as I
understand it, Don, for 41 in a further year, but we could then try to
accelerate that.
Then the question is, what funds -- and it's not on the strategic
intermodal system, so what funds might be available to us or could be
brought to bear to make the improvement. As you know, we have
nothing currently in our five-year program. That's why I'm saying, if
we get aggressive, if we try to advance their design process, noting
that they would have to finish off the PD&E, and we have to follow
the federal process, even if all the funds are available to us, I'm at least
seven years plus out, and that's why I use that date.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: At least seven years out.
MR. FEDER: And in answer to your question, someone would
have to come up with another innovative solution, or we'd have to wait
until the capacity was able to be brought forward.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I know there are a lot of other
commercial businesses chomping at the bit to get into that area, so
maybe a solution will come forward.
And I just want to point out for clarification to anybody who
might be watching this, we have concurrency at work, alive and well.
And no matter how much criticism has been received, we're seeing it
now in action.
And the commissioners, it was really tough back when we put
this concurrency together, and we had to fight the state and so forth
because it's in a very strict concurrency regulation, but we're seeing it
work right now.
My last question is, will there be a median cut by Eagle Creek so
these people can still get in and out of their community?
MR. FEDER: What we're looking at what would be a
northbound left turn in so that if they're coming from Marco Island,
they could take the left turn into their property. Out they would have
to take a left turn and either come down to the signal, which would beo
Page 52
June 28, 2005
south of them, or some other direction to move, or go out their back
entrance, which gets them over, I know not directly, but as changes
come to development there, out to 41 into that signal.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me see. The communities
around there that will continue to build that are vested would be Eagle
Creek, Fiddler's Creek, and Lely. Is there any more?
MR. FEDER: Those are the primary ones. Don, any others?
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, Transportation Planning. Mainly
Fiddler's Creek, but obviously Marco Island, too, which we don't have
any control over, would continue to grow.
We're trying to -- we're dealing with some of the issues of
whether the 110 percent would stop even vested development based
on the growth management bill and some other issues out there. So
this gives us some more capacity towards the 110 percent also.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Habitat's approved there too, right,
at that --
MR. SCOTT: Habitat was previously approved.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not vested.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's vested --
MR. SCOTT: No, that was previously approved. And actually
in the system right now, the only issue they have right now is a
right-of-way permit with FDOT that we're trying to deal with, right,
onto 41.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- it's my understanding
from the Florida Department of Transportation, they are looking at a
grade separation. They do not know which direction the grade
separation is, whether it be north, south, east, or west.
I'm a little concerned of making a decision, making
improvements, and those improvements may go way, or buildings
may be in the way of the building. But I know -- I know the issue, I
Page 53
-----^
~~-""__.___~.M~"'
June 28, 2005
know the ordinance. I just can't support the motion because there are
so many uncertainties, so that's just a statement.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There are two public speakers?
MS. FILSON : Yes, sir. The first one is Rich Y ovanovich. He'll
be followed by Ed Griffith.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Ed won't
need to talk unless there's some specific questions. But I wanted to
first thank staff for working with us to come back so quickly with the
agreement after you all agreed to have it placed on today's agenda.
I do want to just point out a couple of things. First of all, WCI's
one of the participants. They already have 283 reserved trips, and
there's going to be a small revision to the agreement to acknowledge
those 283 reserved trips.
This obviously makes the system better. There's already a
backlog. We're going to fix an existing backlog and provide some
additional trips on the road for other developments.
Also, it also assumes that every one of these units are built today
when you're looking at when this theoretically will fail. As we know,
there's no way every unit will be built today. It will be built over a
period of time. So even though on paper the capacity may be used up,
the reality is it won't be used up on the actual transportation system,
because it will take us a while to build all the different residential
units.
We met with FDOT, and I can't remember if I mentioned this at
the last meeting or not, and FDOT has been very supportive and is
working with us to make sure that this happens quickly so we can
meet the time frames in the agreement, to make sure that we can build
this during the off-season and that we'll be completed before the new
season starts, and it does provide that Wal-Mart will have to wait on
their COs if we don't get the road completed.
And with that, I want to thank staff. And this is obviously to
further improvements we already can do. It's simply to make sure that
Page 54
June 28, 2005
if we do spend the money to build the improvements, we actually can
enjoy the benefits of doing the improvements.
And with that, I hope -- I hope you all will vote in favor of this
and give the concurrency system the opportunity to work and to fix
itself and give the developers an opportunity to fix -- to fix the
problems under the system.
And with that, I'll answer any questions. Ed Griffith can answer
any questions, and we have representatives of the other parties here as
well if you have any questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what we're basically doing here
is we're reserving the capacity increase for your constit -- for your
representatives that you're representing --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- in this area. And I believe you
also said that you were going to do this a lot -- probably a lot quicker
and a lot faster than --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, since it's coming out of our
pocket, we're going to move this as quick as we can and as least
expensive, obviously meeting the design requirements, but we do
think we can move quicker and --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This ought to be interesting. You
might have a new life as a transportation director or something.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That job's too hard. Norm can have that
one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I just want to reiterate
some of the statements I've heard just to make sure I totally
understand it. You're going to be limiting yourself to building this in
the off-season?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And you will not be issued a
Page 55
June 28, 2005
CO until that point in time that the capacity's there on the road?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm trying to find out what it is
about this I don't like, and I can't --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm hoping you'll find nothing about this
that you don't like. We have worked very hard with staff to make sure
that we do this as -- to not inconvenience the already existing traveling
public on the road.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That intersection right now is
failed?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe it's at capacity. It's at capacity.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, based on our system, not
necessarily with the actual traffic that's out there, but with the vested
trips on it, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can sort of see this as a venue
for the future on some of the problems we have with roads out there
and the limited amount of funds that we have. We have a major
problem in some areas of951, and we need a secondary road.
And I think when the time comes and some of these
developments are going to come on line, they're going to come up
with some extremely creative ways to make it happen, especially if
they know they've been approved but it's contingency that's holding
them up. It's quite an ingenious thing this has developed into. I don't
know if you put a patent on this, Mr. Feder, but maybe you should.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you can forget about it now for the
future because the new growth management plan has essentially
forbidden it.
So let me -- I'd like to tag onto a couple of things Commissioner
Coletta has raised to emphasize again, we're only giving you capacity
that you're spending money to create.
Page 56
June 28, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're not giving you anything that
you're not entitled to here. The other point is, essentially, that the
construction itself is going to be done by you. We don't accept the
responsibility for any overruns.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that's very important, because that
could double the cost of this project.
The other issue is, we've talked about the road failing, okay.
What we're doing here today will not cause the road to fail. It actually
creates additional capacity on the road. The road cannot fail. It
cannot fail in the future unless we take action to violate our own
concurrency system, and we're not inclined to do that.
So when we're talking about failing, it can't fail because the
traffic that is to be created by the vested units has already been
included in the calculations that exist today. So there is no way it can
fail unless we violate our concurrency procedures and approve
additional development which is not already included in the traffic
calculations.
So I just wanted to make that clear. And with that,
Commissioner Fiala, did you want to say something?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. In regards to your comment,
I understood that, from Mr. Feder, that we're expecting it to fail, not
that it cannot fail, that it is only going to be good for so long.
MR. FEDER: The commissioner is correct, in that sense, it will
not fail. It will come to a point where development wants to progress
and we have to tell them under our system that they cannot because
we don't have the capacity available.
Our work program, a very aggressive one, is designed to avoid
that, but we have that in this situation. That's where we are right now.
They're proposing to not only add the capacity they're going to
Page 57
June 28, 2005
consume, provide extra capacity and still pay their impact fees, and so
the process is working.
So it will not fail in the sense we will not allow it to go past, or
else we won't approve development. The only other thing that could
happen is background traffic, City of Marco growth and the like. But
we will not allow it to fail in the sense, and the commissioner is very
correct about that. That's what our system is set for, is once we get to
the point where we cannot authorize additional trips, we do not
authorize additional trips.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But it's only a short-term fix, you
said?
MR. FEDER: It's a short-term fix to allow any more
development or allow up to 200 more peak hour trips, as an example,
and then we will have to stop it again.
When I say it's a fix, I will no longer be able to authorize
additional trips onto the system. That's the failure we're talking about,
not the failure of the network. That's what the system guards against,
as Commissioner Coyle very well pointed out.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When you say it's likely to fail in the
future, you're saying that we're going to be in a position we can't let
any more development take place?
MR. FEDER: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And under that circumstance, that
becomes a moratorium. And under the states guidelines, we have to
develop a plan that is financially feasible to get us out of that
moratorium situation.
MR. FEDER: The ultimate is a moratorium, but our own
concurrency system allows us to say no --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. FEDER: -- and wait on either our improvement or
improvement by the developers, as we're doing in this case.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So it really cannot fail?
Page 58
June 28, 2005
MR. FEDER: That's what we're structured to do, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We will stop the development before it
fails?
MR. FEDER: Together we will.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That's the way it works.
Okay. We have a motion to approve and a second. We have no
more public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 3-2, with Commissioner
Fiala and Commissioner Henning dissenting.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'd recommend that we take a
break right now for 10 minutes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. We are going to take a break thank
you. Ten minutes.
(A brief recess was taken.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
Item #10G
DISCUSSION ON THE STATUS OF FEMA FLOODPLAIN
Page 59
<_~__<m' _.,....._.__~__~."~___..~_"
June 28, 2005
MAPPING PROJECT AND OPTIONS REGARDING THE
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA)
LETTER OF FINAL DETERMINATION (LFD) DATED MAY 17,
2005 TO COLLIER COUNTY OFFICIALLY NOTIFYING THE
COUNTY THAT FEMA NOW CONSIDERS THE BASE (1 %
ANNUAL CHANCE) FLOOD ELEVATIONS (BFEs) ON THE
PRELIMINARY FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS (FIRM) AND
FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY (FIS) REPORT TO BE FINAL -
COUNTY TO SEEK AN INJUNCTION WITH FEMA TO COME
UP WITH MORE ACCURATE MAPS - APPROVED
Item #12A
DISCUSSION OF FEMA ALTERNATIVES/DIRECTION -
DISCUSSED UNDER lOG
Commissioner, that brings us to item lOG, which is to discuss the
status of the FEMA floodplain mapping project and options regarding
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Letter of Final
Determination, dated May 17th, 2005, to the -- Collier County
officially notifying the county that FEMA now considers the base one
percent annual chance flood elevation, BFEs, on the Preliminary
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and the flood insurance study
report to be final.
Mr. Joe Schmitt, the Administrator for Community
Development/Environmental Services, will present.
And I will mention to the Board that this is a companion item to
item 12A. And if you give any directions to the attorney, we'll just go
right into 12A, at that particular juncture, and we'll pretty much do
two items at the same time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, good morning. For the record,
Page 60
June 28, 2005
I'm Joe Schmitt, Community Development/Environmental Services
Division Administrator.
With me today is Robert Wiley, he's my Principal Project
Manager, Engineering Services Department, and Jeff Klatzkow, who's
the Assistant County Attorney.
And in highlight, we are here today to update the board on the
current status and the development of the proposed implementation of
the flood maps by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
We want to review the details and answer questions regarding the
floodplain mapping contract with Tomasello Consulting Engineers, if
you wish to ask questions in regards to that, and lastly, obtain Board
of County Commissioners direction on the requirements and the
available options in regards to the implementation of the affected
maps.
As you certainly are aware, the county did not complete the
submittals required and the modeling associated with the floodplain
analysis and coastal flood assessment for the six inland basins and the
coastal study by March 31st, 2005, deadline that was imposed by
FEMA.
And as a result, FEMA issued its Letter of Final Determination
stating that the modified base flood elevations will now be effective
on November 17th, 2005. And again, as you are aware, the new maps
have been the focus of the county and City of Naples appeal since
December 1998.
I need to stress though that the County's efforts from '98 to,
essentially, March of 2004, was focused primarily on the technical
competency of the data analysis of both the coastal study and the
Sheet 2D study, which is referred to basically as the Northern Golden
Gate Estates area, used to develop these flood elevation maps.
Last March the County, in partnership with the City of Naples,
agreed to shift its focus of the appeal dispute to a joint effort to
provide FEMA the needed data and analysis to develop a complete set
Page 61
June 28, 2005
of maps, or revised maps for all of Collier County.
In essence, this appeal of the coastal and Estates maps shifted
from a focus of data and analysis to refute the proposed maps to
basically a coordinated effort and partnership with FEMA to produce
a comprehensive flood insurance study and a set of revised maps for
Collier County.
The contract with TCE, or Tomasello Consulting Engineers, was
modified to now include finalizing the study and analysis for the
coastal study and the six inland watershed basins. A seventh basin
was added last July to cover the Ave Maria and the Immokalee area.
We knew going into this that this was a three-year process, two
years to gather and analyze the data, and a year for FEMA to review
and publicly vet the maps. FEMA gave us eight months and agreed to
a three-month extension.
I guess your first question is why? I can only assume that the
date that was imposed by FEMA of 1 April was strictly related to the
contract they had with Dewberry, their subcontractor.
We knew last March that things were not -- that the contract with
Dewberry appeared to be ending, and we now subsequently learned
that it had, in fact, ended on the 1 st of April, and all the mapping
efforts have now shifted to a firm outside of Atlanta, and some due to
changes in the contract and the lack of adequate funding, our efforts
were basically stalled, at least at the FEMA level, and lastly, we really
were held to an unrealistic schedule.
In your packet is a letter -- in your packet also, and include -- in
this summary is a letter that was included from County Manager Jim
Mudd responding to the final determination notification received from
FEMA where FEMA notified the county that the maps would go into
effect in April 2004.
You'll note in that letter dated 2003, we requested that the
implementation date for the revised maps be delayed to at least
January 2005 to allow at least 12, but preferably 24 months to conduct
Page 62
June 28, 2005
the required studies and to prepare approximately 7,500 letters of map
amendments that we expected we would be dealing with in the Golden
Gate Estates area.
Our efforts over the past year have certainly not been wasted. I
wish to stress again that we were successful in delaying the
implementation of the maps twice over the past two years, from
October 2003 to April 2004, and then from April 2004, till November,
of course, the date in 2005 when they're going to be implemented.
And we were successful based on the data and analysis provided
to dispute the Sheet 2D study regarding the Golden Gate Estates, and
that was redesignated back from a zone A to zone D. A zone A is
basically where you have to assign a flood elevation, and zone D is a
zone to be determinated (sic), basically future studies.
And we also basically changed the requirement to have over
7,500 properties in the Estates file for separate letters of map
amendment to dispute the flood elevations.
Before we go into where we're going from here, if any of the
commissioners have any questions regarding the technical aspects
defined in your executive summary -- there's an extensive review in
there about the various zones. I really see no need to go into that
unless you see any specific questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The only question that I have, Joe,
on this is that information that was passed on to me at 4:50 yesterday,
is this the new flood zones that the -- FEMA has come up with, or is
this the flood zones through the study group here in Collier County
along with the city?
MR. SCHMITT: That is the flood zone maps that will be
implemented by FEMA. Those are from the original -- those are the
1998 maps that are -- will be implemented November 17th.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So in short here, does the data that
we have generated, how does that -- does that support what FEMA has
Page 63
June 28, 2005
here, or is there a large amount of discrepancy?
MR. SCHMITT: In short answer --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
MR. SCHMITT: -- it does not. Our data, as I said -- stated two
weeks ago, our data is beginning to show quite -- with certainly
validation, that the current maps seem more in line with the way the
maps should be, rather than the maps that are shown there. So--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What does that mean?
MR. SCHMITT: The studies that we've been doing now
basically show that these maps are not -- this has been the form of -- a
basis of our dispute for the last -- since 1998. The maps -- the data
that they used, we disputed the data, and now our studies are showing
that, our current -- the current maps, the ones we have in place right
now, not the new FEMA maps, but the current maps, are more in line
with what the flood -- the flood elevations should be.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I need that --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is that good or bad for the coastal
areas?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's better.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, once our data's accepted and they agree
to reproduce new maps, it will-- it will improve. It will probably --
we expect it will reduce the base flood elevations back to more in line
with where they are now than what's shown on these new maps.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That's the answer I'm
looking for.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's better for us.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. That's the answer I was
looking for. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I knew that six years ago, by the way,
and I was told that by the consultant six years ago. I don't understand
what's happened in the interim, but nevertheless.
Commissioner Henning?
Page 64
June 28, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What was the deadline, the
contract deadline, for Tomasello?
MR. SCHMITT: I have that in the follow-on discussion, and I'll
go through that so you can see that in some slides so I can show that.
But if we have no questions specifically on the various
designations, I can go through the rest of this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Mine was just -- you were
saying, excuse me, increase in base flood elevations, and you were --
in here on that particular paragraph, it said, depending on the location
of existing flood zones compared to future flood zones, BFEs can
change from almost nothing to over three feet. And do the new maps
reflect that these BFEs are three feet higher now?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am. They reflect -- the heights can
change anywhere from no change at all up to almost three feet. Now,
they're -- again, getting into the technical aspects of it, but the datum
used for the two maps changed. But that in addition to the increase
BFEs in some areas in the county can go up to almost three-foot
difference and require --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
MR. SCHMITT: -- base flood elevations.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Just to get a little
clarification on this study. Is it my understanding that the task that
was set before us and the city, there was no way that you were going
to meet the mandated time line because of the fact that -- the amount of
work that was going to be involved in producing new maps and
actually coming up with new software and trying to figure out what
FEMA had really come up with originally; is that somewhat correct?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Shown behind County Manager is a chart
I got from the FEMA. It's a three-year process. We're about a year
into this process right now. It's a three-year process. It just -- due to
the study, the reviews and the requirements. And I'll go through that.
Page 65
June 28, 2005
I've got a couple slides to show that in a little more detail.
Let me go through the rest of this, because I'm trying to lay some
groundwork here, and then we can -- I'll go through some brief slides
to show you where the impacts are, and then we can discuss kind of
where we go from here. But basically we have three choices. We do
nothing and we accept the maps and implement. Then we use all the
compiled studies and analysis to go back and file for a later map
revision, and we can do that legally after the maps are implemented in
November.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: We can refute the proposed maps and file for
some kind of an appellate or declaratory relief from the federal courts,
and with a possible request for injunctive relief. And the county
attorney certainly can address some of those questions and issues.
The third option, and both City Manager Robert Lee and myself
were up at FEMA last Wednesday, again, discussing, where do we go
from here. We can enter a partnership agreement.
They have offered -- FEMA's offered to enter into a bona fide
memorandum of understanding between the city, the county, South
Florida Water Management District, and, of course, FEMA, in
developing a very deliberate and funded schedule for them to
complete the maps as they had committed over a year ago.
Certainly if you select option three, please note that we're already
about a year into this process. Unfortunately--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Joe, wait a minute.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm not sure I understand what you just
told us. If you enter into an agreement with FEMA, does that mean
they withhold the implementation of the new maps?
MR. SCHMITT: No, sir. They have still committed on fielding
the new maps November 17th. When we met with the regional
director of FEMA, region four, that decision to delay the
Page 66
June 28, 2005
implementation of the maps is really above his pay grade, quite
frankly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: And I'm going to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Wait a minute. I understand then
that FEMA is not going to delay the maps.
MR. SCHMITT: As of now, they have not -- they are not going
to.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That seems to me that it narrows our
options, because if these maps go into place, then everything that is
approved, any development that is approved from the point when
these maps go into play will have to be done in accordance with those
new maps, so that the types of construction will change, the elevations
will change, there will be a lot of changes with respect to construction.
Then if we prevail a couple of years from now, then we go back
to a different set of construction standards, okay?
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct, and that's been basically my
argument. Makes no sense.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And in the process, the insurance
impacts could be rather dramatic, although I understand that you're
grandfathered as long as you own your property. What happens when
you sell it or you want to buy additional property or another piece of
property or it's destroyed? There are lots of problems with doing that.
So I would -- I'd like to suggest, in the interest of resolving this
issue as quickly as possible, that we not accept an alternative which
involves permitting FEMA to implement these maps, that we go for an
injunctive relief. Does that disagree with any recommendation you're
prepared to make?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, in summation -- and I'm going
to -- let me just -- I want to -- I'm not avoiding your question, I just
want to make sure you understand where we are in this, because this is
Page 67
June 28, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm not sure I really care where we are.
MR. SCHMITT: This is the timeline. We would have to go out
to almost December '07 before they actually produce a final map.
If we seek injunctive relief our -- it's a double-edged sword.
Certainly we have every right to proceed with pursuing the
amendment and providing the data that we have, and I'll answer
Commissioner Henning's question here. I have a slide here to show
what was submitted to date.
But what we do is basically create an adversarial relationship
between us and FEMA, and this process could be even pushed out to
'08, '09, because rather than a cooperative relationship, we now enter
into what I would call an adversarial relationship.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute. You told me that even
the cooperative relationship required that they implement the maps --
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- this year.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, when you're saying that
we're going out to December 2007, what is it you're saying? That if
we proceed with doing the work that we have been doing, that FEMA
will be ready to make a decision on the new -- our data in December
2007? Is that what you're saying?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, I'll go back. This is -- yes, to answer
your question. And I'm going to go back to show where we're at.
We're about right here. We've done the coordination, we've done the
scoping, we're into all the data and analysis, and then in -- the problem
is, FEMA changed contractors, they've also changed the philosophy
on how they update flood insurance maps throughout the country.
That's not a centralized operation anymore. It's not decentralized. It's
pushed down to the state and the region.
We're in that void. We're also -- all the information we gave to
Dewberry, the subcontractor for FEMA, has just been shifted over to
Page 68
June 28, 2005
the new contractor in Atlanta. They're going to take probably 90 days
to review all the data that we submitted to date, and another 90 days
for discussions back and forth with our contractor.
And then producing digital firms, which is, again, a new process
with FEMA. But this is the process -- if we go through in a
deliberative manner, we would be ready to implement maps in
December. Ifwe seek some kind of relief --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: December of what year?
MR. SCHMITT: December of'07.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: So we would be living with the current maps
for a year and a half or longer until the new maps are in effect.
We -- if we seek some kind of an injunctive relief -- and I'll have
to turn to the county attorney, there's no guarantee that a judge would
prevent this. Of course, it's a risk, it's an issue that we'd have to deal
with. A judge may say, get together with FEMA, come up with a
schedule, revise the maps, and I'm going to implement the current
maps. These maps have been around, as you well know, since 1998.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, they've been around --
MR. SCHMITT: Longer than that, yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- since a lot before 1998.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, yes. It's actually '96, I think they were
developed.
The problem is, is we're in this -- kind of this transition, and
we're one of the two or three counties now involved in this actually
where we're doing it at the county level. If we go through some kind
of legal process, the relationship we have with FEMA will certainly be
tenuous, at best, and it would be more of an adversarial relationship,
and this process could even be pushed out more.
So the discussion is, do we -- do we really want to live with the
maps? And I've got some examples to show how the maps are -- what
the difference is and basically the areas of the county that are
Page 69
June 28, 2005
impacted.
But the question becomes, do we want to accept the maps, work
in a cooperative manner with FEMA and try and pursue implementing
new maps by December of'07, or do we want to go through some
kind of a legal process, and certainly it's going to have an impact on
this schedule. But we have every right, every right, to continue to
submit our data to support the development of new maps.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
MR. SCHMITT: And to answer the question, here are the --
these are the deliverables for Tomasello on the chart that shows
everything he was contractually required to provide. The final maps
are in January. That would be in conjunction with FEMA, but these
are the dates everything will be submitted in regards to the set-ups,
and those set-ups are different runs through models, and it's kind of an
iterative process.
We submit it, they approve it, it comes back, our contractor runs
through second set-up, third set-up, so it's a sequential operation, but
that's where we are today. Unfortunately with the change in the
contractor, much of what we have already submitted is going to be
re-reviewed by the new contractor, Baker, in Atlanta.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So, are you saying -- and I think
we're trying to get to the bottom here. The question that
Commissioner Coyle addressed to you is that if we let these maps
come into effect, and the -- the new maps and don't do anything, then
this is going to be an impact on the people here in Collier County that
are now in a new flood zone or increased flood zone, and we go
through this exercise, and December '07, we get relief, hopefully, does
that mean that the people who may be impacted and may have to
purchase new, more expensive flood insurance because they moved
into an area -- my understanding is that people who presently are in an
area, that as long as they stay there, they're grandfathered in.
Page 70
June 28, 2005
So my question is if we -- if we do nothing and go through the
process and December '07 we get some type of relief, does that mean
that people who had an increase in insurance will now have a decrease
and that people who are paying flood insurance, and if we find out the
data is in favor of their area, that they may have a reduced amount of
flood insurance in their policy?
MR. SCHMITT: Wow.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's a legal question that I think
probably ought to be answered --
MR. SCHMITT: Robert can answer. He's my -- the floodplain
manager, and he can -- I'm going to ask Robert to answer the technical
questions, but -- in regards to what you're asking. But understand --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We've got to make a decision.
MR. SCHMITT: I've got to come back -- if you accept the new
maps, in September I have to come back to this board to amend
chapter 62, which is floods, which basically dictates to my building
director the new BFEs, to implement the new base flood elevations.
There are areas of the county that will be -- well, all across the county.
Shown here is the -- and I'm going to just flip very quickly so
you can see the changes. This is the current map.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute. He asked a fairly simple
question. The answer is, no, they're not going to get a rebate because
insurance rates are based upon the maps that are in place.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But what I'm saying is, will they
get a reduced rate if, at the end of December '07, if we should -- if we
should prevail, then will -- I'm saying, does that mean that their
insurance will go down then accordingly if we prevail?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's no way of determining whether
they'll go down because the rates are set by the insurance companies,
but they will be less than they would be otherwise if we prevail.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That's the question -- that's
the answer I was trying to get.
Page 71
._~-_.~-.
June 28, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is that true from counsel over here?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think that makes absolute logic. You
can't predict if they go down, but -- because rates may go up,
generally.
MR. SCHMITT: Could I have Robert answer that?
MR. WILEY: Let me -- if I could, my name's Robert Wiley with
Engineering Services.
The insurance premium is based upon your relationship of the
house, lowest floor elevation, and the flood zone, and where you are
vertically to it. It runs with the property, not with the individual.
So if a person is currently in a flood zone and they already have
flood insurance, the new person buying the house carries the very
same level of flood insurance even though zone changes, until such
time as there is a 50 percent damage to the house or 50 percent or
greater improvement made to the house.
Now at such time that a person gets in a higher flood zone
designation and they have built a new house to it, they are now
complying to the new standards. If the flood zone decreases, then
they are allowed to rerate their insurance, and subsequent premiums
are reduced because you are built to a higher standard than your
minimum flood coverage requires, if that answers your question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That did. That answered my
question. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would say to you that has not been the
practice of the insurance companies recently. I know of neighbors in
my area who have had their rates increased because they were placed
in a new category, and I have personally witnessed that and I have
personally talked with the insurance companies about that.
And Commissioner Henning has a question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Joe, that slide didn't answer my
question. Let me tell you what I have. November -- the contract was
Page 72
June 28, 2005
supposed to expire November of2004. It was extended in September
21, '04, to add Ave Maria. We gave 120,000 extra dollars, Ave Maria
and some other things. We extended the contract out, and the
expiration date that I have is July 31 st, 2005. Is that what you have?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, but the --let's take the Ave Maria. We
just issued notice to proceed the 1 st of June for Ave Maria. I've been
delaying that because of all the other studies. So the contract is solely
based on when we issue notice to proceed to the contractor to do the
certain studies. I certainly was not going to tell him to do Ave Maria
when I still was on his tail of getting the other studies.
On this chart here the first two, the coastal model and Golden
Gate main canal, are the City of Naples contract. That was the one
where we had a memorandum agreement between us and the city.
That is the city's contract, and that was the deliverables that were
contractually -- the contract that the City of Naples entered into.
The other five on there are our contract. And not shown there, of
course, is the Ave Maria, and that -- I have a schedule of those dates.
And yes, you're right, there were dates back in November of last year
for deliverables. But the deliverables were strictly based on the
review periods from FEMA and the data that we had, the data that we
needed to support those deliverables.
And I've been through this, and I'm not being disrespectful. But I
mean, from a standpoint of, we didn't know what we didn't know a
year and a half ago when we went into this. And as I stated before, we
didn't -- we did not have first and second order control in the Estates.
I had to go back out under separate contract and have all the lidar
certified. We needed the additionallidar from the Corps of Engineers.
The lidar is the electronic mapping, the digital mapping, light
detection and ranging mapping that comes from the F eds and from our
property appraiser.
All those kind of things that had to be done in order to meet the
national mapping standards as required by the FEMA contractor to
Page 73
- _.._,,-,,-,~~.--
June 28, 2005
review the data we submitted. So we had those kinds of obstacles that
we had to overcome. And, frankly, we knew what we were facing a
year and a half ago.
And as I walked out of the building the day that they gave us
eight months, I said, this is a two years. I'd be delighted with a year.
We accepted eight months. But when you have a noose around your
neck and the governor gives you somewhat of a reprieve, you take
anything you can.
But we absolutely knew it was going to be much longer than
what they gave us. But the contract that we had certainly with the
contractor, we had deliverables, but those deliverables were also based
on availability of data and the required support that -- to support this
contractor to get through some of these studies.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What I read is, it expires
July 31 st, 2005. That's on the clerk's website. So, I mean, if it's
different, then fine. If it's not, I would hope that somebody would
come to the Board of Commissioners with an amendment of the
contract, or you otherwise might not receive payment.
MR. SCHMITT: He's only received payment for the deliverables
to date. But I -- there are contractual requirements to support all the
way up through the final maps on this -- through this contract.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: And he's only been paid for services provided,
and that's for the ones in green. Everything else, he's not been paid
for.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I can testify to that. The
fact that when we were in there with FEMA, they weren't going to
budge. That was the end of everything. They were going to declare
everything with the flood maps and available data that was there at
that time, and we were told to go fish.
And Joe made an excellent case, and they did relent. We did ask
Page 74
June 28, 2005
for the two years. They gave us the eight months. And like Joe said,
you know, anything we could take to give us some buying time.
Then that move did save the taxpayers of Collier County tens of
-- or hundreds of thousands of dollars in insurance premiums that
they'd have had to pay.
I'm not too sure how it fits into all this, and you're probably going
to summarize it all up later. But if you get forced into an insurance
set-up in such a way that you don't think it's fair and it comes out with
a new one later, like a year later, can you get a reimbursement? Does
that still stand?
MR. SCHMITT: No, there's no reimbursement. It's -- the flood
maps are like actuary tables. It's just a --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They change with time?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, it's pretty dynamic. But you don't -- if
you pay insurance now, let's say you're in an X zone and then you go
to a flood zone and then you go back to an X zone, no, you will not
get any type of payment, return payment for what you paid for that
insurance. I mean, it's like car insurance or anything else, you--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could we cut right to the chase
and get down to, what would be your recommendations, and we can
take it from there and go one way or the other?
MR. SCHMITT: I have mixed emotions, and I need the --
probably Jeff needs to talk the legal issue. But after last Wednesday's
meeting with FEMA, and given -- holistically at the impact, the area
most impacted in the county is along the coast.
Most everywhere else, given the year, year and a half, maybe two
years we'll be living with the new maps versus the risk of alienating
FEMA and not getting their commitment to support the funding and
development of new maps, I think it's in the county's best interest to
enter a memorandum of agreement between South Florida Water,
FEMA, and the county, to move forward on the effort that we spent a
year, year and a half right now, into providing the studies to produce
Page 75
__0'_._. _.O___~'''''''
June 28, 2005
the new maps.
We can still try and pursue through administrative means
delaying the maps through compelling logic. Again, I've made -- I've
stressed to FEMA, and I've gotten a letter to Mr. Mudd that we're
going to forward to FEMA. It makes no sense to implement the maps
in November after hurricane season, after flood season, high and dry
season, so to speak. It just makes no sense.
From a practical standpoint, let's live with what we got, and then
proceed with moving to develop -- mutually develop new maps. If we
enter into a legal dispute -- and I'll have to turn this over to Jeff and he
can answer the questions in regards to a legal dispute.
If we enter into a legal dispute, I would have no doubt that we'll
put at risk the relationship we have FEMA. But it certainly may give
us a reprieve in regards to implementing the new maps.
So it's a policy decision. I'm inclined -- when you look at the
impacted area of the county, the impacted area, given what they've
already taken out of the county -- and that's pretty much all this, if you
shift it to -- and you can see the change. And I'm doing it quickly just
so you can see how it's changed.
The impacted area of the county is already the built-out area of
the county, it's the coastal area of the county. Both City Manager Lee
and myself in discussing this, the few permits that we do issue,
certainly there will be an impact, but the impact considering the
degradation that may take place in regards to the relationship we have
with FEMA, that's just a risk.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Tell me -- tell me, what is this
relationship with FEMA that seems to exist? You've asked them for
more time; they've denied you. You've asked them to be more
reasonable in the application of the maps; they've denied you. You
have asked them to participate in the study in the past; they have
denied that.
What relationship is it that you think you have with FEMA?
Page 76
June 28, 2005
MR. SCHMITT: They gave me a copy of a cooperation
technical partnership's program. It's in relationship to the new process
where they're decentralizing this -- the amendment process as far as
the mapping. This is an agreement that will basically codify a
relationship, like I said, between FEMA, South Florida Water
Management District, the city, and the county, with a deliberate
schedule where they will provide the funding needed and devote that
funding to commit to Collier County a schedule to update the maps,
and that was the chart that I showed.
If we want to go through legal matters, we can still do this. I
would doubt they'll enter into any type of relationship from an
agreement type process through any type of memorandum of
agreement or memorandum of understanding. We still have every
legal right to go through it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Explain to me -- and maybe Jeff is the
one that needs to answer this question. Explain to me why, if we -- we
file for injunctive relief to delay these -- the implementation of the
FEMA map until we and FEMA can agree upon some scientifically
supported data with the most recent and accurate data available, why
would it jeopardize our ability to proceed with FEMA to achieve that
goal?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know that it does. I don't think it
would be particularly adversariallitigation. I'd be more interested in
proceeding in a mediation type fashion with FEMA and basically
explaining to the judge, what we're really trying to do is avoid having
maps implemented that, well, two years from now will be changed,
and to avoid that.
In general, as best as the relationship is, whether he feels that
there may be back channels that will now back away from this
because of the pending litigation, you know, I'll defer to Joe on that.
But, I mean, there's no reason why we couldn't be working with
FEMA, at the same time, litigating. Whether a judge would be willing
Page 77
June 28, 2005
to give us that injunction, that I don't know. I think it's an up-hill
battle, quite frankly, and you've heard the history of what's going on,
and there are a lot of questions we could be asked on, why didn't we
do this then, why didn't we do this now, that are basically hard
questions to answer.
Our case is really one of fairness to the people impacted by the
new maps, and FEMA wins most of these, quite frankly, but there is
that argument,
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I understand.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is really the whole crux of this
problem because of bureaucratic chaos that took place because they
knew that the contract with the original contractor with FEMA was
ending, and we were put in a box? And now we may have -- because
FEMA has a new contract with a new firm, that we may get some
relief; is that a possibility? Is that where we're going with this, or
what's your guidance as --
MR. SCHMITT: First question regards to burea -- yes, I would
say yes, because as you well know, this has been going on in the
county for a long time. They've issued two letters of notification --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could you answer the first question
first?
MR. SCHMITT: -- both which they reversed. So yes, it's a
bureaucratic process. It also is because, like I said, they've changed
contractors and they're also changing the philosophy of how they
update these maps. It's now becoming a local problem rather than a
federal problem, and we're one of the first counties to do this.
So -- and they didn't commit any money after April 1 st for any of
the work that we submitted. The money stopped.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So under the new contract with
FEMA --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
Page 78
June 28, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- do you believe that they're going
to assist us in regards to addressing this issue?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They're going to pay up front to
look at this study of all the information that we're presenting them,
they're going to commit money to looking at this to see if it's in favor
of us here in Collier County? Is that what you're telling me?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, they've committed to that last week.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. They committed to it?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, they did.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did you get a written statement on
it?
MR. SCHMITT: I will-- that's when they gave me this
memorandum, and I'll come back in September for the board to certify
this, or rati -- at least from a standpoint of, codify the agreement, but --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what does it say -- just briefly
what -- where -- can you -- you got some particular wording that's
underlined there for assurance that we're going in the right direction
here?
MR. SCHMITT: It says basically, now, and therefore, it is
mutually agreed that parties enter an agreement to work together to
create and maintain accurate up-to-date flood hazard data for Collier
County subject to the terms and conditions below.
It goes through consulting, evaluation reporting, resource
management standards, and the terms. We'll have a firm commitment.
I think if we go through litigation, we can still enter into
something like this. I think it will be probably just a lot more
cautious. Any time we send e-mails back and forth, any time we
discuss anything, certainly lawyers will be present because we're
under a lawsuit.
FEMA's currently five years into a lawsuit with a community in
South Carolina that basically has disputed the maps. So it is a very
Page 79
June 28, 2005
long process to dispute the maps.
Jeff can probably discuss the first move. I would have certainly
no objection, certainly from the board's perspective, if they want to go
that route just with the understanding that it will change the
relationship and it may -- it may stretch that schedule out in regards to
updating the maps.
Regardless, we're going to -- they have to act on the data we
submit, update the maps. The key here is, can we get a judge to stay
the implementation of the maps, and that's the -- that is the key.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: If I may. It sounds like a legal question's about
to come in, and I wanted to mention in regard to what both Jeff and
Joe have indicated is that Jeff said that, in his quiet way, that he
thought it was an up-hill fight, and the reasoning is, is because to get
an injunction, the typical standard that's applied is, is there irreparable
injury that may occur if the court doesn't take an action at that point in
time.
And the second aspect of their review, which they look at very
closely is, is there a likelihood, not a certainty, but a likelihood that
the party asking for the injunction will succeed in the lawsuit in the
case in chief.
Now, we tend to think that the data will tell the story, and we
need the opportunity to provide that data. And so as Jeff indicated, it
is a question of fairness.
And to the extent that a case is filed and an injunction achieved
and we could move into, for instance, the mediation format, that is less
-- is less adversarial, and it does provide some opportunity there. But
the initial injunction, which is something that would be asked for very
quickly with the initial filings of a lawsuit in federal court, will be
determined relatively as well.
If we don't get the injunction, then we're left with the lawsuit in
Page 80
June 28, 2005
chief, which you, you know, plow on toward a result of one kind or
another, hopefully the true data result would be implemented.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, David, if you don't get the
injunctive relief, there's no point in having a lawsuit at all.
MR. WEIGEL: That's what I wanted to tell you about.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And so it seems to me this is a fairly
simple choice, okay? You file an injunction, and it doesn't have to be
adversarial. You're merely saying, it will do irreparable harm to
individuals who have to pay higher costs and to communities whose
character will be changed by the construction standards that are
mandated because of this.
That is irreparable because if you don't want a house on stilts,
then you're going to have to tear it down at some point in time if
you've already built one like that. So it's going to have an irreparable
impact upon the character of the coastal communities. So we at least
seem to have an argument.
I see no reason why we cannot proceed with an injunctive relief
on the implementation date, and then proceed, cooperatively or
otherwise, with FEMA on getting maps based upon the most recent
and accurate data.
They are legally bound to use the most recent and accurate data
available to them, and we know that the data they have is not recent
and accurate.
We can show that the base datum itself has changed dramatically
since the point in time when they ran their models. And that on its --
on its face indicates that there should be a change or an adjustment in
the process, because the wave set-up heights and everything else are
based upon that as a foundation.
So if you start only with the lidar data and the more
recently-adopted national datum data, you can show errors in the
FEMA data, and FEMA should want to correct that as much as we do.
And why they would -- they would get angry with us because we have
Page 81
June 28, 2005
sought injunctive relief to the implementation of inaccurate maps is
beyond me, unless they just want to be vindictive. And if they're
going to be vindictive, they're going to be vindictive whether we file
the lawsuit or not.
So it seems to me the simple case, file the lawsuit for injunctive
relief to keep them from implementing the maps, and then proceed
with our efforts to complete our analysis to develop maps based upon
the most accurate and recent information available. That's it.
MR. KLA TZKOW: And, again, just keep in mind, we do have a
couple of weeks left until we have to file suit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I understand.
MR. KLATZKOW: My drop-dead date is about July 15th.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. KLATZKOW: And there's no reason why we can't have
discussions with FEMA in backdoor channels going forward, you
know, until that date with the hope that maybe the maps would be
rescinded.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, let me ask you a question. Is there
any reason you can't sign this agreement and then file for an
injunction?
There's nothing in the agreement that prohibits you from filing a
lawsuit. In fact, I think that would be illegal.
MR. KLATZKOW: We'd have to -- we'd have to think about
that, Commissioner. I don't know off the top of my head.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: I asked specifically Todd Davidson, FEMA
region four, if we file -- I never really got a clear answer. But I know
it's going to delay any efforts that we have in implementing any new
data. To what extent that would delay it, I don't know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So you're telling me that FEMA is going
to intentionally -- intentionally delay using accurate and recent data?
MR. SCHMITT: The appeal is based on -- and I don't know the
Page 82
June 28, 2005
answer to that. I can't certainly answer for FEMA. But the appeal is
based on two premises. One is the most technically accurate data
available at the time the maps were made. That was 10 years ago,
almost 10 years ago.
Certainly today's technology and mapping standards and other
type of things, we have better data today. The second, was there a
violation in the administrative process? Certainly we don't think there
was a violation in the administrative process. The other is the
technical data. We'll be in front of a judge, and the judge will say, the
data used was the best available data when those maps were made.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I wouldn't even make that argument, you
see? I'm talking about injunctive relief of the maps itself.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, to answer your question
specifically, okay, this memorandum of agreement in this -- we're
supposedly going to start and do work and basically work with us
together as a team. Normally that would not happen until -- or get an
agreement from FEMA to work on that until they issued this new map
on 17 November.
On 17 November -- stay with me here, gentlemen, just for a
second, okay? On 1 7 November when they issue those maps, we have
a 3D-day window to semi say, we appeal, we have -- we want to
change the maps because they're -- they've got some errors in them,
and that you start the process.
I believe what FEMA, based on the meeting that Joe and Dr. Lee
had on last Wednesday with them, what FEMA basically said, we'll
start that process now instead of on 17 November.
Okay. So what we basically have at that junc -- so we're
basically getting around a six-month head start on the process. So I
believe, if you enjoin them, FEMA's going to sit on their thumbs until
the 17th of November when they issue the maps, if they can sit on the
maps, if they're not enjoined not to, and then we'll have our 30-day
period.
Page 83
June 28, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Jeff, what is your understanding of your
drop-dead date on submitting a --
MR. KLATZKOW: I have until July 15th to take this appeal,
otherwise we're not going to court, ever.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So it's not until November. It's
July the 17th.
MR. MUDD: What I described to you in the memorandum of
agreement is the fact that FEMA is opening up that 3D-day window
now to us with this memorandum of agreement. He's got till the 15th
of July to enjoin. You have to make a decision. You've got a 60-day
period of time from the time we got the letter on 1 7 May in order to
get that done.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we've got to make a decision
on filing a lawsuit by the 17th of July?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, 15th of July.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: Which is why we need direction from the
board today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I understand.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Let's go another angle here.
We have the ability, you're saying right now, if I understand you
correctly, that FEMA's going to start working with us now in regards
to addressing all the information that we're going to put on the table
for them in regards to these FEMA maps.
Now, if they go through with this process on November the 17th
and say to us, we're still going to go with the maps that we have here,
we have 30 days after they implement those maps then to join into
another lawsuit; is that correct?
MR. SCHMITT: No. Actually, what we've been through for the
last several years has been the appeal process.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. When they -- the drop-dead
Page 84
June 28, 2005
date of November 17th (sic), when they issue the maps, what recourse
do we have if we want to proceed and not try to work with them from
this point until November the 1 7th?
MR. SCHMITT: Legally you usually have to wait till the maps
are implemented, then if the county has any additional data, you
submit it after the maps are implemented. The appeal process -- we're
through with the appeal process. They've issued the letter of
notification.
When the maps go into effect in November, if the county has any
additional data -- we live with the maps that are in effect and we begin
the work on amending maps through letters of map amendment or
letters of map revision.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Jeff, can you answer Commissioner
Halas' question, please? Just -- it's a legal question, okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He just needs a legal answer.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's an administrative process, not a court
process at that point in time. FEMA will issue the maps. At that point
in time, we will have the ability to amend them or to seek amendment.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what do you -- what's your
best guess for this process to get to some type of a resolution?
MR. KLA TZKOW: Once we get to the point of amending the
maps, what I understand from Joe, we're talking about close to a
two-year process.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm not sure if we want to get
involved in a lawsuit with them that -- where they may not -- they
might become adversarial on this and we don't gain anything from this
thing versus working with them.
I guess that's where we, the commissioners, are trying to make
that determination, what is in the best interest of everybody in regards
to addressing the data that's on the table that wasn't addressed before
because the contract ran out with one firm and now we've got a new
Page 85
June 28, 2005
contract with a new firm, and you're giving us some assurance that
FEMA is willing to work with us; is that correct?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. They've committed to that. And
understand that they have a year process. Once all the maps are done,
they have a year process to go through the public vetting notification.
That's why we're talking almost two years.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But will they increase the
insurance rates?
MR. SCHMITT: The insurance rates will go into effect --
whatever maps are in place at the time, those are the insurance rates
that are in effect.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, let's get one thing clear. When
we're talking about July 17th, we're talking about, that is the deadline
for us to file any injunctive relief.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Once we get to November, there's
nothing that we will do differently than what we're doing now, and
there's no additional rights that run out into November, right?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct. We're under a different
process at that point.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we have to make a decision about
proceeding with the legal -- a legal challenge at this meeting today?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: End of story. Okay.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I was going to make a
suggestion. I see where we're going with this, but first I got one
question. When we're talking about getting into an adversarial
relationship with FEMA, could they come back and roll the rest of the
county into this overnight; in other words, saying, since we're having
problems on the coast we can't trust you with the rest of it, now we're
Page 86
June 28, 2005
going to make everything part of the deal all over again?
MR. SCHMITT: No. The maps that's shown here, the purple
area that was changed to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's not up for discussion?
MR. SCHMITT: That is not up for discussion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: They already issued revised maps indicating
that that is to remain a D, a D zone.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Schmitt, what I would
suggest -- and this is purely a suggestion that we may want to work
with.
We do have a drop-dead date of July 17th. But past that point if
we don't act, we don't have the right to be able to come back, we don't
have the right to be able to put in what we may call a friendly lawsuit
to be able to possibly hold off. We don't even know if we'll prevail, to
be able to get it.
Now, I -- what my suggestion would be is that we empower the
chair to be able to, near that date, to be able to authorize it to go
forward. We're not going to have another meeting. Meanwhile, it will
give you and Jeff a chance to go back and talk to FEMA, tell them that
we're in a box, we don't know how to get out. Could they possibly
extend that July date into November as we're working through the
process?
MR. KLATZKOW: The July date's fixed. The court won't have
jurisdiction after that. It's statutory.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They can't waive it?
MR. KLATZKOW: They can't waive it. Nobody can waive it.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, let me try to -- let me just try,
okay. The only thing -- if you enjoin -- if you enjoin right now, you're
going to lose about six months from the time that you -- a new product
would be available.
So it might not be December 2007. It could be the spring of
Page 87
June 28, 2005
2008. Let's say you enjoin, it comes spring of 2008. You enjoin and
lose, okay -- you enjoin and lose, they issue the maps in November,
and we now have -- we now have some folks that have the maps,
instead of for 18 months, they have it for 24 months, all right.
If you enjoin and win, okay, they're not issuing the maps, all
right. And in the spring of 2008, they come out with the new ones
based on our data, all right.
If you don't -- if you don't even get into the injunction thing, the
best we can do is, we're going to have the old maps -- or we're going
to have this new FEMA map that we don't agree with come out in
November, and we're going to have to live with it until December of
2007. So I guess what I'll say to you is, Commissioners, is if you
enjoin and you lose, you only gain another six more months with the
maps that we don't agree with, and that's -- that's what's at stake right
now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you're making a couple of
assumptions that FEMA is just going to refuse to be cooperative on
anything if we make a motion to enjoin, and I don't know that that's a
correct assumption.
The other assumption is that you believe that the time schedule
we have been given is correct. We have never been given a time
schedule that was correct so far.
We have been working on this problem for almost seven years.
There is no bureaucratic screw-up at FEMA that caused this problem.
The bureaucratic screw-up that caused it is right here. Now, I
understand that our current staff and Joe were not onboard all that
time, but I can assure you that the screw-up is right here. And so we
cannot blame that on FEMA.
And I am not going to place any confidence whatsoever in any
schedule that involves Tomasello and consulting -- as consultant on
this particular proj ect.
Just as recently as a month ago, we were being told by our own
Page 88
June 28, 2005
staff that the data would be available to be submitted in July. It win
be complete in July. We didn't make the March date. It will be
complete in July. And what we've got up there is a January date for
next year, and I'll bet you that won't be met either.
So I think the assumptions that are being made here are erroneous
assumptions. You're not going to make those dates unless we find a
contractor who's capable of making a date. We're not going to make
those dates unless we've got a staff that insists on milestones and
insists on penalties if you don't get the job done, and that hasn't
happened in the past, and I don't see it happening in the future.
So unless those problems are cured, I have no confidence
whatsoever in the schedule that has been presented to us.
So my feeling is that the greatest service we can provide to the
residents of Collier County is to try to get those maps stopped until
such time as, in the future, we can get our act together and get this
data pulled together and presented.
That's my position.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to hear from Mr.
Schmitt. That was a pretty strong statement.
MR. SCHMITT: I certainly understand the frustration, and
certainly our contractor did not meet the deliverable dates that he
committed to. That is no argument. But on the same face of it, it's also
the contractor that FEMA uses.
We are -- our success is directly related to the contract service we
get from FEMA's contractor. That was, at that time, Dewberry, and
now it's a new firm. So that it's kind of a mutual relationship.
Everything -- our contractor certainly was not timely in
submitting the data he was required to do, and we're holding his feet to
the fire on this.
The unfortunate -- and as Commissioner Coy Ie said, we did state
that everything would be done at the end of July, and because of --
nothing's been done with the data we submitted since the 1 st of April.
Page 89
June 28, 2005
That's delayed again because we haven't got any feedback in regards
to going to each one of these other set-ups.
Each set-up requires approval from the FEMA contractor to
proceed to the next phase of the -- of our modeling, so it's a direct
relationship between our contractor, the FEMA contractor, and the
FEMA representatives. It's not simply just going out and doing the
study and finalizing it and turning it in. It is a -- it is an iterative
process.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Do you have confidence
in our present contractor?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, that's a tough question. Based on past
performance, certainly no, but based on contractual requirements, he
will submit everyth -- he will complete everything that will be
required as part of the contract. That's his contract.
Where I have on here the final maps in January, those are strictly
related to the services provided by the contractor now under contract
by FEMA, and that's Baker, Joseph Baker and Associates up in
Atlanta.
I -- I know FEMA. FEMA, certainly between Dr. Lee and
myself committed to funding -- supporting this and providing the
necessary funds to meet the requirements, to do the digital mapping.
And as I think Jim put it together very succinctly, that certainly if
we go a legal route, I cannot commit to an August or December '07
date. I'll have to talk to FEMA. If it becomes a legal matter, it's
certainly going to make that -- probably extend that -- or delay that
schedule. So that's the risk. We--
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I want to -- let me come back to
this one, because I never did finish, okay. Commissioner, my
recommendation is, you don't really have anything to lose if you
enjoin, okay. If you enjoin, the only thing you risk is six months. Six
months more with a broken map that they're going to issue in
Page 90
June 28, 2005
November that we believe is a bad map to begin with. So that was my
recommendation before I got there.
Commissioner, I would recommend that you enjoin. Ifwe win
the injunction, then it holds the maps off until we get it done. They
have no choice but to work with us. If we lose the injunction, we're
going to get the map that we don't agree to in November, just like they
promised anyway, and we're just going to have to live with it, not for
18 months, but for maybe two years, and that's that six months that I
was talking about.
That's all I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I thought you were talking about six
months in the other direction.
MR. MUDD: No, no, no, sir. And I didn't get a chance to finish.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll be happy to make that motion, that
we authorize the County Attorney to seek an injunction to delay or
prohibit the implementation of FEMA maps in November pending,
hopefully, a joint effort on the part of Collier County, the City of
Naples, South Florida Water Management District, and FEMA, to
come up with more accurate and up-to-date maps.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that as long as it's not
going to put us in an adversarial position here.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, just for the record, with that motion, I
understand that we'll still be working to try to get those maps --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
MR. KLA TZKOW: -- revoked till then, that if we don't meet it
by the deadline, then the lawsuit will commence, and that this will be
as non-adversarial a lawsuit as we can possibly make it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That sounds good to me. Okay. I've got
a second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I just wanted to say that I
Page 91
June 28, 2005
hope that staff doesn't take it personally. There's been tremendous
efforts to make this work, and I've seen those efforts firsthand.
There's been all sorts of conditions out there that have been
against us, and FEMA's been less than cooperative, and they -- their
reason is their contractor. So possibly this lawsuit might be the way
that we can put things back into balance to give us the time that we
need.
However, with that said, we've got to remember, whatever the
final product is, when science is in and it's before us, that's what we
have to accept as the truth and be able to live with it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I would like to add that I've been
involved in this since December of 1998, and that's an extremely long
time. It is inexcusable. Whoever was involved in it back in those
days, it is inexcusable that is has taken so long.
I do understand the more recent issues and the problems. But
when you look at the entire project, it is inexcusable that it has taken
so long to get to where we are today.
I -- I won't review the stuff. But I've sat in meetings where a
consultant provided us information that said within two to three
months we'll know exactly how much the adjustment is likely to be
and that way we could continue funding or we could decide to pull the
funding based upon that result, and I don't recall ever receiving that
information.
But in any event, let's not belabor that any further.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I think that this process was
a lot bigger than anybody thought, and I think that the staff that
presently has been working on this has been working diligently and
really had to establish basically baseline marks all the way out
throughout the whole Eastern Golden Gate Estates because that was
never established. And so there was so much additional work took
place even before we could even get started with this thing.
Page 92
June 28, 2005
So, yeah, it's taken a long time. I understand your frustration.
But I think at this point in time, it's a slow process but we're at least
getting something established. I think that we're getting data that
everybody can rely on, that it is good data up to this point.
And it's just very, very time-consuming. But I think that's --
wasn't that some of the basic problems that we had establishing
benchmarks out there?
MR. SCHMITT: I didn't even have any control out there at all in
the county until a year and a half ago. It was a local datum. All
building permits were issued based on 18 inches above the crown of
the road. Until-- I mean, that's the way we operated.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion and a second.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes 4-1, with Commissioner
Henning dissenting.
MR. KLA TZKOW: And, Chairman, with your permission, I'd
like to contact the City of Naples and their attorney to see if they'd
like to join us in this battle.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Okay, good. Thank you.
MR. SCHMITT: Thank you.
Item #10B
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE MAJOR TRANSIT
DEVELOPMENT PLAN UPDATE. FY 2006-2010 - APPROVED
Page 93
June 28, 2005
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to an 11 :30
time-certain. It's item 10B. This item to be heard, again, at 11 :30.
We went past it a little bit, but Ms. Flagg said that she could do it in
10 minutes. It's a recommendation to approve the Major Transit
Development Plan Update for Fiscal Year 2006-2010.
Ms. Diane Flagg, your Alternative Modes Transportation
Department Director, will present.
MS. FLAGG: Good morning, Commissioners. The item before
you is the major update to the Transit Development Plan, which is
required by state and federal agencies in order to continue to receive
transit grants.
The Transit Development Plan is a strategic visioning document,
and approval of this plan does not obligate funding of the
improvements.
I'd like to introduce Ms. Victoria Burke, the Senior Research
Associate from the Center for Urban Transportation Research, who
has, with a team of researchers, written a Transit Development Plan
for Collier County and will present a summary of the document.
MS. BURKE: Thank you. Some of you have seen some of this
presentation before, so I'll move through it very quickly.
This is actually -- we've exceeded the state's requirements, and
we have put on another five years to the plan, so this will be a Transit
Development Plan for -- through the year 2015.
Again, it's aID-year strategic plan that is required by the state in
order for CAT to receive its block grant funding.
An important thing for you to remember is that, by definition, by
adopting this TDP, you are not committing to funding all of the
recommendations that are contained within.
It is a requirement of the TDP, and the state expects to see not
only funded recommendations, but also those recommended needs that
do not have any funding sources identified yet. They expect to see
that, and we have included those; however, potential funding sources
Page 94
June 28, 2005
are identified for those recommendations.
Again, this is a major update which takes place every three years.
And this slide lists all of those tasks that we've been involved with
over the past few months as part of this TDP.
Part of the TDP, we interviewed our local elected officials and
others, including those of you on this board, and some of the key
results shown here, very positive perceptions of CAT, also some good
ideas for improvements as well that we considered in our
recommendations.
Some onboard survey results. The bullets I like to point out on
this slide are the third and fourth bullets where you have a nearly 19
percent riding because CAT is either more economical or more
convenient as their primary reason for riding. And in a transit system
of this size, having nearly 20 percent of the riders having said that is
very positive.
On this slide, I draw your attention to the second bullet. We
asked how important would it be for you to improve these service
aspects, particularly Sunday service, frequency, and hours or service.
We were hoping to get this great divergence in some of the
answers that might help up prioritize; however, you can see those
three, 81 percent, 81 percent, 78 percent virtual tie. So your
customers want more service out there.
And I won't read these. These next two slides list the goals that
have been set and updated for CAT. It's a requirement of the TDP
process that we go through this goal-setting process.
Some performance numbers on the last full fiscal year completed
is 2004. You see ridership increased nearly a third from the previous
fiscal year. A good thing is that ridership is growing faster than the
amount of service you're putting out there, showing an increase in
productivity. Very, very positive.
Also the last bullet showing that the farebox recovery ratio, that
means the proportion of operating expenses that are covered by the
Page 95
June 28, 2005
fares that you collect, 19 percent. Actually, this is very far above
average, especially for a system of your size and your age. Very
young transit system.
Florida, the average is about 20 percent. Nationwide it's only
about a third. So you can see, fares do not ever pay for the whole
operation of the transit service.
We also did a peer review analysis because of data availability
issues for outside of Florida. We stayed within the State of Florida.
Looking back at fiscal year '04, the dark blue horizontal line
represents Collier.
As you can see, ridership, the peer group contained transit
systems that had between six buses and 16 buses. And in fiscal year
'04, you were at 11 buses, kind of in the middle. Second highest
number of trips, second only to Manatee County Area Transit, which
is the largest agency in the group, and also the most mature. The other
ones listed there are all within 10 years old.
The second graph, even more impressive to me. The passenger
trips per revenue hour. This is a very commonly used standard
performance benchmark for transit, for evaluating transit service. And
as you can see, CAT is number one out of the whole group, even
surpassing a very mature system like they have up in Bradenton. So
that is very, very positive, and you should be proud of CAT for its
performance.
And, oh, boy. I swear it didn't look like this when I'm doing it on
my computer. Sorry about that. The skew for this slide is really the
text that's to the right of the graph. It should have fit on the screen.
But you can see, the tall purple bars represent fiscal year '05
ridership. It's for the first eight years -- or eight years, I'm sorry --
eight months of this fiscal year, and you can see that the growth just
continues to be really amazing.
And as of -- through May, you have already exceeded all of last
year's ridership, and you still have four months to go. So, you know,
Page 96
June 28, 2005
you're putting out more service, and that's true, but again, ridership is
growing faster than the service you're putting out there.
And finally, just select -- to highlight some of the
recommendations. Based on what your customers want, you know,
they've shown that when you put the service out there, they use it.
Improve frequently. FDOT service development grants have
been submitted for some of these improvements we have
recommended.
Also on this slide, the parks and recreation, park and ride to the
beaches, and park and ride service to Golden Gate also have had grant
applications very recently submitted to help pay for those services.
And additional service to Immokalee, work with employers to
provide additional incentives for transit use, investigate the
coordination with Lee Tran, which is something we have, looking in
this 10-year plan, looking at some regional -- more regionalization of
the transportation services, and also looking at other modes, perhaps
van pool service that might help in the future.
So, again, this -- the state at this time only requires a five-year
plan; however, to assist the county with its long-range transportation
planning, we extended another five years. Again, those second five
years are not as detailed as the first five years. As you go through
your annual updates, you can firm those up.
I tried to go through that as quickly as possible, so I'll be glad to
answer any questions you have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You did a very good job moving it
along, and thank you for not reading the slides to us. Too many
people assume we can't read. You did a got job. Thank you very
much.
MS. BURKE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any questions by commissioners?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just one, if I may.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
Page 97
June 28, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It mentioned that the -- one of the
suggestions is to have the alternative transportation modes director be
appointed to the T AC. Do we need to take action on this today, I
mean, vote on that or something?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's MPO.
MS. BURKE: I don't believe so, but Diane could speak to that.
MS. FLAGG: That will be coming before the MPO board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Fiala for approval.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And a great, great job. You guys are
just doing wonderfully.
MS. BURKE: Thank you.
Item #12B
DISCUSSION OF SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL/LITIGATION
Page 98
June 28, 2005
EXPENSE ISSUES OF THE PENDING LITIGATION CASE OF
COLLIER COUNTY V. LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY,
CASE NO. 2:05-CV-216-FtM-33SPC NOW PENDING IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE
DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, FORT MYERS, FLORIDA - CLOSED
SESSION
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 12B -- you could
time that a little bit better. No, I'm only kidding.
MS. BURKE: Sorry.
MR. MUDD: It is 12B. It's basically the time where -- it's at
noon time-certain. It's a closed attorney/client session with the board.
We'll go into the shade for this particular item. It will be back in your
conference room.
And David, do I need to say anything more?
MR. WEIGEL: You don't, but I will. As I indicated earlier, Jim
Mudd, County Manager, is invited to attend; the County Attorney, I,
will be there; no other attorneys will be there with the board.
The court reporter will need a little bit of time to set up. It should
go rather quickly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We are adjourned for lunch.
(A closed session was held, and a luncheon recess was taken.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Item #12C
SETTLEMENT OFFER FROM LEXINGTON INSURANCE
COMPANY IN REFERENCE TO COLLIER COUNTY V.
LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, CASE NO. 2:05-CV-216-
FtM-33SPC, NOW PENDING IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA,
FORT MYERS. FLORIDA - SETTLEMENT OPTION APPROVED
Page 99
June 28, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good afternoon. We're back in the
afternoon session, and we're on item 12C, I believe, isn't it?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And we --
MR. MUDD: And item 12C is, this item's to be heard at 1 :00
p.m. It's to discuss a settlement offer from Lexington Insurance
Company in reference to Collier County versus Lexington Insurance
Company, Case Number 2:05-cv-216-FtM-33SPC, now pending in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort
Myers, Florida, and to give direction to the county attorney regarding
the litigation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We just came out of a closed
session, which was at 12 noon, and I'll turn it over to the County
Attorney in regards to what we've discussed in that period of time.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you very much. Before you in this item
is a discussion direction regarding a potential settlement of the lawsuit
filed by Collier County against Lexington Insurance Company as the
insured's interest with AEC company from whom we had achieved a
$687,000 judgment.
The company against whom we received the judgment has no
assets. We went against the insurance company. The case is currently
pending in federal court. They, in fact, provided an offer of$190,000
to settle the claim against the insurance company.
And so the question for you to consider is whether to settle this
offer for $190,000. And if you should determine yes today, then you
would be authorizing the chairman to sign any necessary papers for
closure of the lawsuit, including the County Attorney.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any other questions by
commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion?
Page 100
June 28, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve the
settlement offer.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to
approve, second by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that was for $190,000.
MR. WEIGEL: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. 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 passes unanimously.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you very much.
Item #7 A
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL 2005-260: PE-2005-AR-7123,
MICHAEL MICELI, OWNER, REQUESTING A PARKING
EXEMPTION TO ALLOW OFF-SITE PARKING ON A LOT THAT
IS NOT COMMERCIALLY ZONED, AND TO ALLOW TWO OR
MORE PERMITTED USES TO UTILIZE THE SAME OR A
PORTION OF THE SAME REQUIRED PARKING, PURSUANT
TO THE PROPOSED SUBSECTION 4.05.02.K.3. THE SUBJECT
0.99-ACRE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 4600 GULF STREAM
Page 101
June 28, 2005
DRIVE, IN SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST. COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that moves us back to paragraph 7,
which is the Board of Zoning Appeals, and we'll start items --
paragraph 7 and 8 starting now.
7 A, this item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure be provided by commission members. It's
PE-2005-AR-7123, Michael Miceli, owner, requesting a parking
exemption to allow off-site parking on a lot that is not commercially
zoned and to allow two or more permitted uses to utilize the same or a
portion of the same required parking pursuant to the proposed
subsection, 5.05.02.K.3.
The subject .99-acre property is located at 4600 Gulfstream Drive
in Section 18, Township 50 south, Range 26 east, Collier County,
Florida.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're going to hear from the
petitioner first?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute. We need ex parte
disclosure here.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we need all participants to be sworn
In.
So will anyone who is planning to give testimony in this petition,
please stand and be sworn in. Raise your right hand, Michael.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And ex parte disclosure,
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: On this particular item 7 A, I do not
have any disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
Page 102
June 28, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I had a meeting with the
petitioner and also received phone calls.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I have had a meeting with
the petitioner, and I have discussed this issue with the staff.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've had a meeting with the
petitioner, I've also discussed this with staff, and I've also gone to take
a look at the property.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: None.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Very well. Are we going to hear
from the petitioner first or the staff? Okay.
MR. MICELI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Michael Miceli. I'm here to try to get approval for a parking
exemption that I filed on property I own at 4600 Gulfstream Drive,
Naples. And I'm here to answer any questions you may have about
that petition.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioners have any questions at
this point?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Not at this point.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not at this point.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then let's hear the staff
presentation.
MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is
Kay Deselem, and I'm a Principal Planner with Zoning and
Development Review Department. And you have received a copy of
the staff report and the executive summary.
I'll just hit the highlights. Staff is recommending denial of this
petition based on the findings that we've provided to you and the legal
considerations.
And I would note particularly several items, as is referenced in
the conclusion and the recommendation, in that it changes the
Page 103
June 28, 2005
character and the quality of the neighborhood, which is item five in
those findings, and it would be detrimental to the traffic flow in the
residential streets because vehicles are forced to use a roadway to get
from one parking lot to the other, which is items seven and eight, then
item 12, whether there are other viable alternatives available, and staff
believes that there may well be.
So with that, we are recommending denial. If you have any
questions, I'd be happy to address them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There were a number of violations cited
for this particular property, and what I would like to understand is
whether or not those violations were minor in nature and can be easily
corrected and whether or not those violations were actually not
violations in view of the past use of the property. What can you tell us
about that, Kay?
MS. DESELEM: I have with me today Mr. John Olney from
Code Enforcement, and he can better address those.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you. And what is this we
have on our screen?
MS. DESELEM: I don't know.
MR. DeRUNTZ: That's for the next one.
MR. MUDD: You have nothing on your screen, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. OLNEY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm John Olney
with the Collier County Code Enforcement.
On February 5th of 2004, I served four notices of violation on
Mr. Miceli, one, that he needed to have a site development plan for
use of his property as pretty much outlined in Kay's matter; secondly,
that there was a fence erected on the property without a permit. Yes,
that could be easily rectified.
Third, that he placed a diversionary wall in a drainage ditch
behind the property, greatly restricting the flow. Stormwater
Management and Code Enforcement is saying that must be removed
Page 104
June 28, 2005
and the ditch restored to its original condition; and fourthly, that there
was two sheds on lot number three. Well, actually a shed and a metal
storage container on lot number three, which was an undeveloped lot.
That would be easily corrected.
The stormwater problem and the site development plan are two
violations that will be difficult to resolve as the situation right now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could you tell me how this particular
modification is worse than the situation before? It appears that this
stabilizes a bank.
MR. OLNEY: At this point it is about to fall in. I took that
picture Monday. And the wall at one point was straight. Well, it's
hard to -- it went straight. It is now leaning far into the canal. It is, I
would say, 75 percent blockage at this point.
And when I started this case, it was -- it was straight even with
Mr. Miceli's property. It has since pushed over quite a bit and is now
restricting the water flow quite a bit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you have some before and after
pictures of this property so that you can tell us what was modified?
We can get an idea of what existed prior to Mr. Miceli's improvements
on the property?
MR. OLNEY: No, I do not. I did not know the situations until it
was reported to us. But basically there's a fence there now separating
the rear part of his property which is used for storage. There's a small
shed which has been there for years on the unimproved lot. There was
one of these large metal storage containers like we use on ocean-going
vessels sitting on the lot for storage.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you back up to the slide that shows
the aerial so you can tell you where that --
MR. OLNEY: Here is the metal storage container. Here is the
small shed. The fence runs across back here. This part of the issue is
this parking lot -- pavement of the parking lot.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Which one?
Page 105
June 28, 2005
MR. OLNEY: That one there. That was paved by Mr. Miceli.
Two or three years ago I used to use that lot to get out of traffic to sit
and write up some of my reports. At that point I considered it a gravel
lot. It has since been paved.
Mr. Miceli maintains that it was an old level of -- layer of
pavement there and that he merely repaved it, that he did not start
from scratch and pave over an unimproved lot. I disagree, but I --
because I did not see any, but there may have been patches. I did not
look at the lot with the purpose of trying to find old pavement at that
time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So this is the before shot?
MR. OLNEY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you could identify that pavement on
this one.
MR. OLNEY: That is the area where I would park and turn
around or sit and write my reports that I considered to be a gravel lot,
and that's the lot that we just saw that had the container on it that is
now paved and striped.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, you had -- I'm sorry,
Commissioner Halas, I'm going to get to you in just a second, if you
don't mind.
How about the buffering between the commercial and the
multi-family lots?
MR. OLNEY: At this point there is none; however, pursuant to a
site development plan, that would be required.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Could that buffering be
accomplished without removing parking spaces and! or asphalt?
MR. OLNEY: I don't believe so.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is also zoned RMF-6; is that
correct? And we're using this now as commercial identity?
MR. OLNEY: Yes, sir. Lot three is being used in conjunction
Page 106
June 28, 2005
with lot two.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the stormwater issues are -- is
that he has to have -- provide storage of stormwater on his property; is
that correct?
MR. OLNEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's not -- that's not a--
feasible under the plan that's presented to us today; is that correct?
MR. OLNEY: Not -- correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And it also -- if he's -- this is --
some of this is commercial. And what we're doing is entering
residential streets. And if we allow this, then the RMF-6 lot, which is
lot four and lot three, this is going to have a larger impact on the
neighborhood; is that correct?
MR. OLNEY: That is correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And we discussed the wall.
And then I guess I basically covered the ingress and egress. And I'm
concerned about the zoning here, where we're using this as a
commercial and it's supposed to be RMF-6. That, to me, is the biggest
thing, that and the stormwater retention.
I make a motion for denial on this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion for denial by
Commissioner Halas.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Coletta has a question or statement?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes -- no, a question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm curious, why not just ask for
a rezone? What we're asking for here is just a variance?
MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem again. This was
the petitioner's choice. He chose to do a parking exemption. We
Page 107
,.-......., ,~--~,-~-
June 28, 2005
reviewed it based on its merit as it was submitted. He could at some
later time, if he so desires --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would it have been any
different if it was a rezone?
MS. DESELEM: Been any different in what way, sir?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words, I mean for
consideration, or would it basically be following about the same rules
going right down?
MS. DESELEM: Yes, and then he would run into the same
issues as far as going into the neighborhood. So the issues would be
very similar, and it wouldn't affect to change the issues as far as water
management.
MR. MICELI: Is there any way of responding to information she
talked about?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just a minute. Are you finished? She
answer your question?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I wish there was a way we could
accommodate him. I know what his concerns are of what we're
dealing with here.
Yes, she did. Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Miceli, would you like to address
something?
MR. MICELI: Yes, I would. First of all, on the supposed
retaining wall that I have installed, John Olney was there when we
were erecting that wall and was watching the rain come down, and the
dirt kept coming right back into the ditch, and never said a thing while
we were doing that.
It came out later that Ms. Cheryl Soter told him that that was a
violation and he should go out and do this. I have her e-mails to him.
So he came out and tagged us with all the -- all these different
violations, like four at one time.
But that diversionary wall is only a retaining wall that's on my
Page 108
June 28, 2005
property. The drainage ditch is also on my property. It didn't need to
be a drainage ditch of four feet tapered up to -- because the water, as it
kept washing down, the county would come and clean the ditch. All
the fill that was put in there, all of the way, and we went back and
tried to put our dirt back.
So without the retaining wall, not a diversionary wall -- while
still on our property, we couldn't retain the dirt. And it's a landscape
structure, and I don't know that you need any kind of permits for that,
but if you do, we could do that. But John Olney himself watched us
do it, never said a thing.
Also on the fence that we put around the dumpster, that -- with
that fence -- first of all, in the state statutes, we could do up to $1,000
worth of work without a permit. It's also in the Collier County fee
schedules, I think it's in there, it's about 750 bucks. Well, the fence
and the labor was under $300. We bought it at Home Depot. We
have all the bills for that, too.
As far as the development order -- because I resurfaced an
existing parking lot. It was probably used for over 20 years because
even the building, the commercial building, has large overhead doors
in the back of it, so when they got that permit, they must have
anticipated some traffic over that lot. And it's not an unimproved lot.
It's part of the triplex that's there.
There are two lots. The triplex and this supposedly undeveloped
lot. Well, it's not an undeveloped lot. Look at any of the land around
there. And we have aerials from the assessor's office of Collier
County .
I did -- we didn't pass any out to you now, but you had them
before. He said he used to park in that lot. Well, there's a driveway
that's put in, I believe, in 1978. And I don't know that for sure because
that's the date that's scratched onto the concrete. So he must have
pulled in there because it was nice and flat and had gravel, because he
could go park in any other lot with all kinds of vegetation. He would
Page 109
June 28, 2005
never do that.
So in 20 or 25 years that lot was used by all three properties. I
mean, I don't even know -- because in trying to research the records,
there's no way of saying or telling if maybe there wasn't a parking
exemption granted years ago. I don't know that, nor does the county
know that. They can't answer that. I've only owned it for three years.
And it was used that way.
Now, if you resurface the lot, I don't know why that would
trigger getting a development order, because I improved the property
by doing stucco painting, resurfacing, putting in handicap ramps, and
things of that nature, to improve the property.
So that answers to me -- that answers, why the need for a
development order from water management.
And there's a Planning Commissioner member by the name of
Schiffer. I have excerpts from that Planning Commission meeting,
and he says it all. He seemed to have first-hand information about this
property, and he knew that all of the water drainage flows into that
ditch, and that ditch is adequate to handle all of that. In fact, it even
takes water from across the street.
But in trying to fully utilize that property and improve it, these
are the problems I ran into.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Halas, you have a question?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was just going to say that the
problem is that you've turned this RMF -6 into a commercial lot
without it being rezoned.
MR. MICELI: Not necessarily, sir, because that property was
used as -- by the commercial.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I can't -- I understand what you're
saying, but when you go by the land development codes that we
presently have, this is an RMF-6, and it's to be used for residential and
not for commercial, sir.
Page 110
June 28, 2005
MR. MICELI: But if it was used for over 20 years--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Miceli, that doesn't make any
difference. Now, you're not a novice at this. You have developed
places before. Youtre very well aware of the regulations.
MR. MICELI: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So you know that when you have
zoning, that you have to conform to the zoning. So you can't say that
you think before you bought it somebody used it for a purpose and it's
okay for you to do that. If we did that everybody would be saying
that, and we would never be able to enforce our zoning codes.
Now, does staff have anything else to add to this --
MS. DESELEM: No. If I would just -- for the record again, Kay
Deselem. I would just draw your attention to the concerns that the
Planning Commission had when they reviewed it and reiterate that our
recommendation and their recommendation was to, and is to, deny this
petition.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion on the floor.
Any further discussion by commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta votes in
opposition to the motion. The motion fails.
I'm sorry. The petition fails.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The denial --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion is to deny the petition, okay.
Page 111
June 28, 2005
Item #7B
RESOLUTION 2005-261: CU-2004-AR-6965, KELLY MICHELE
SMITH, PROJECT PLANNER FOR DAVIDSON ENGINEERING,
INC., REPRESENTING FLORIDA HOMES OF COLLIER
COUNTY, INC., REQUESTS SECTION 2.04.03 OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE ESTATES
ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PURPOSE OF A MODEL HOME
SALES CENTER. THE PROPERTY TO BE CONSIDERED FOR
THE CONDITIONAL USE IS LOCATED AT 12815 AND 12825
COLLIER BOULEVARD BEING LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF 13TH AVENUE S.W. AND COLLIER
BOULEVARD (C.R. 951), WHICH IS UNIT 26, TRACT 118,
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 49
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. THIS
PROPERTY CONSISTS OF 5 ACRES - ADOPTED; STAFF TO
ADDRESS CHANGES TO THE GMP REGARDING MODEL
HOMES - CONSENSUS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is item 7B, and this
item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure
be provided by commission members.
It's Conditional Use 2004-AR-6965, Kelly Michele Smith,
project planner for Davidson Engineering, Inc., representing Florida
Homes of Collier County, Inc., requests section 2.04.03 of the Collier
County Land Development Code of the Estates zoning district for the
purpose of a model home sales center.
The property to be considered for the Conditional Use is located
at 12815 and 12825 Collier Boulevard being located at the northwest
corner of 13th Avenue Southwest and Collier Boulevard, County
Road 951, which is Unit 26, Tract 118, Golden Gate Estates in Section
Page 112
June 28, 2005
15, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
This property consists of five acres.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're going to swear everybody
in here.
Will all the people planning to provide testimony in this hearing
please stand and raise your hand.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Ex parte disclosures,
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have no ex parte on this particular
item on the agenda today.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Myself, I have nothing to
disclose on today, but I've seen this item two other times before this
commission in the time I've been here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have no disclosures on this particular
petition.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: None.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then staffs going to make a
presentation.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Petitioner usually makes his presentation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry?
MR. MUDD: Petition normally goes first, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, okay. Oh, I thought she was on
our staff.
MS. SMITH: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's why I thought she was up there,
but okay.
MR. MUDD: Normally they get older because they used to be
our staff.
Page 113
June 28, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, I see.
MR. MUDD: In this particular case, she could become part of
our staff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. I really asked the
question, staff is going to make the presentation, that's why I thought
-- go ahead.
MS. SMITH: Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Kelly
Smith. I represent Davidson Engineering and I'm here this afternoon
as the agent for Florida Homes of Collier, Incorporated, in their
request for a Continual Use to allow for the extension for an existing
model homes sales center for two years.
Also with me this afternoon is Mike Schmaeling of Florida
Homes.
Florida Homes has been in business in Collier County since
1969. They primarily serve homebuyers in Golden Gate Estates, and
their average home selling price is currently $180,000.
The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Collier
Boulevard and 13th Avenue Southwest in Golden Gate Estates. There
are currently two model homes with associated parking on the subject
property .
The existing model center complies with all parking, handicap
access, and landscaping requirements of the land development code.
The property is designated Estates on the Golden Gate Area
Master Plan future land use map of the growth management plan. The
Estates designation permits model homes and model sales centers as
conditional uses. There are several model homes and model sales
centers in this area along Collier Boulevard.
The petitioner agrees to all the stipulations presented by staff,
including the stipulation that a sidewalk be designed and constructed
per the Land Development Code requirements along the entire
frontage of this property on 13th Street Southwest within six months
of the approval date of the conditional use.
Page 114
June 28, 2005
We ask that you approve the conditional use requested.
Mr. Schmaeling and I are available for your questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm a little bit concerned. This
has been before us how many times now? Two other times?
MS. SMITH: I'm not familiar that this issue has been before the
board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is for approval of
something that we approved before for another extension, right? No?
I'm sorry.
MR. DeRUNTZ: For the record, Mike DeRuntz, Principal
Planner with the Zoning/Land Development Review. This is the first
time this property has been before us for a model home conditional
use permit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But there was one for a different
developer.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. There was one across the street.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's what I'm recalling. Okay.
Then I have to change my declaration earlier in the fact that this is
remotely related.
I'll tell you, where I'm coming from is they'll probably be back in
another two years asking for an extension. This offers nothing in the
way of a problem for the neighbors in the area. Once they sell this,
they've got to build another one down the street a little farther so
there's no gain.
I'd like to see this approved, and I'd like to see it for four years
rather than two. Rather than have to deal with it in another two years
agaIn.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And does the motion include the staff
recommendations?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Staff recommendations.
Page 115
;_..,_..",. _.,__...,.__._._,_,<._,..,,"__."~e"'~
June 28, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion for approval
with staff recommend --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have a motion to approve to
extend it to four years.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: For four years.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And with the other stipulations
by staff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could we just ask the petitioner if
he wants it for four years.
MR. WHITE: If I may, Mr. Chairman. Assistant County
Attorney Patrick White. I believe that one of the things that resulted
from the CCPC discussion was the addition of the second to the last
whereas clause on your resolution, which reflects what the growth
management plan has to say about this type of a conditional use. This
is in your comprehensive plan. It's not the LDC.
And what it says is that there's a maximum of a one-time,
two-year time period for a conditional use of a model home. So I
don't know what the staffs opinion about that is, but I feel it's
important to at least advise you about that rule.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So the motion would be
contrary to the Land Development Code?
MR. WHITE: The Growth Management Plan.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Growth Management Plan.
Well, then I withdraw the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Or you want to modify it to two years?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, modify if for the two
years. It's just that when we go through this process, we're going to go
through it again in another two years. I'm just trying to save
everybody a lot of trouble.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And does the seconder still support the
motion?
Page 116
June 28, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'd like to comment --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- if you don't mind.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Growth Management Plan
is to allow for zoning harmonious to the neighborhoods. This
conditional use is in a major arterial roadway that will be expanded to
six lanes.
Other areas in Golden Gate Estates will be -- could affect
neighbors that -- it might not be harmonious. So I think four years,
personally, is harmonious with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. I
would hope that the motion maker would reinstate his motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll reinstate it, but I would still
like to hear from our County Attorney. I don't want to put us into a
box where we'll be challenged on something later by what we do now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Question also.
MR. WHITE: I don't know certainly whether you will be
challenged or not, and what the likelihood of any success of any
challenge would be, of course. But all I'm bringing to your attention is
what the Growth Management Plan says, and there may be either of
two ways that this could be resolved in the intervening next two years.
One, of course, would be to somehow change the Comprehensive
Plan to continue to reinforce this board's idea that a longer period of
time may be desirable. And the other route is to allow the notion that
there's a limit of a one-time two-year to be changed so that you may
have multiple opportunities of two or more years.
So I think that there's an intervening period of time that we could
come back with you that takes this board's direction and creates a
regulation that fits the situation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I ask you this. Is there a
possibility that when we redo it over, we could take the decision we
make today, if it's only for two years, and just extend it at that time for
Page 11 7
June 28, 2005
four years, or would he have to come back through this whole process
again, we have to sit here and listen to the whole part being presented
over and over again wasting staffs time, commissioners' time, and, of
course, the petitioner's time?
MR. WHITE: I believe that it may be possible today to pass this
with a condition that if the board acts subsequently to extend either the
time, number of times you can ask for the two-year period or to extend
that two-year maximum, that this application would be entitled to
follow those rules.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then I amend my motion to
include that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
Just a moment. I'll get back to the motion. Commissioner Halas
has been waiting a while.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I've got concerns some on
this. What took place -- this expired on 6/1/02, and it was discovered
12/23/04 that this was out of compliance.
And my understanding with the Conditional Use, this is basically
a residential area that's being used as a commercial piece of property
under a conditional use to sell a home, or sell homes.
So first of all, the first question I want to know is, what took
place in the time frame between 6/1/02 and 12/23/04, which was about
two and a half years that this was out of compliance.
MR. DeRUNTZ: You're absolutely correct, sir. The permit was
-- this property is located in the Estates district, and single-family
residential is a permitted use. They applied for a temporary use for
model home sales, which is allowed. By 2002, the temporary use had
expired, and they came back in for -- or they came in after a year to
apply for a conditional use permit.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It was 18 months, or two and a half
years.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. They were continuing to operate as a
Page 118
June 28, 2005
model home sales center.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why the lapse for two and a half
years?
MR. DeRUNTZ: I can't speak to that, sir. The property owner's
here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, he was out of compliance,
and now he's asking for forgiveness, plus the fact that under our
current Growth Management Plan, this is basically an item whereby
it's used for commercial up to a point in time, and that's why we've put
it into the Growth Management Plan that there's a limitation on this,
and that he can come in here and ask for an -- a variance on that, but
yet we -- he's been out of compliance for two and a half years, and
now he's in here now at this point in time asking that he can extend
this from today until another two years.
I guess I need to know what the answer is. Why were you out of
compliance for two and a half years, sir?
MR. SCHMAELING: Yes. For the record, my name's Mike
Schmaeling from Florida Homes. At the time, that it actually expired,
we weren't really aware of it. We were notified by Code Enforcement
that we were in violation. We took the steps necessary to go ahead
and meet with planning review, and then to go ahead and get all of our
surveys and all the things that they requested to go ahead and get -- to
become compliant.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But when you first came in here
the first time to get this Conditional Use, you knew then that there was
a timeline, so there's got to be some responsibility on your part to
make sure that when you get close to when this is going through an
expiration, that you need to take steps to get into compliance; am I
correct?
MR. SCHMAELING: Yes, sir, you are correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what -- why was that
neglected?
Page 119
June 28, 2005
MR. SCHMAELING: Just didn't realize it, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well-- okay.
MR. SCHMAELING: Once we were notified of the violation,
there was a brief time there that we had considered actually selling the
site and the homes to relocate to a new site, but, of course, with the
escalation of property prices and the new cost of construction, we
were -- we decided right away to go ahead and try to become
compliant.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think there should become a
point in time where an item of this nature, a model home, that the time
should end for it to where it becomes in compliance where you sell
this and then it becomes part of the neighborhood.
MR. SCHMAELING: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And so what I'm trying to
get from you, extract from you is, is this going to be the last time that
this is -- you're going to come forward for an extension, or is this
going to be something that we're going to continue on for year after
year after year or --
MR. SCHMAELING: Well, as most people know, the life-span
of a model with the design features and the designs of the home and
things, you have to try to keep current with current building trends and
styles, so I would -- I would feel pretty certain, yes, sir, that this would
probably be the very last time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I was just going to say, we
were talking first about renewing every two years. Maybe there could
be some type of an automatic renewal that would take place if that's
something that our attorneys feel could be added into this, not only for
this particular one, but for other model homes in the same category,
they've been in business two years, and maybe they automatically
renew if there hasn't -- if they fill out a proper paper and if there have
been no complaints or something.
Page 120
June 28, 2005
MR. WHITE: Commissioners, I don't believe that would be
possible under your rules today. First you have a Comprehensive Plan
provision that seems to create a one-time, two-year maximum.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But that's why I suggested maybe
look at it because --
MR. WHITE: And making it administrative at this point as part
of this application, I don't know is possible. The most that I think is
possible is if those rules change, is to, in essence, as an administrative
step, go ahead and consider this application to be eligible for that type
of a rule. But the rule change --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, and I'm sorry, Patrick. I must
not have said that very clearly. I didn't mean for this particular one.
I'm suggesting that you look into it for future situations like this. I'm
sorry .
MR. WHITE: Then in that event, ma'am, yes, absolutely, we
certainly could create an administrative renewal process after some
initial period of time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I'd like to -- I withdrew
my other motion, but I would like to make a motion that we go with
staff's recommendation, that we can address this later, Commissioner
Fiala --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and see what we can do. You
see what I'm talking about?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I want to point out, too, that
what we have along 951 is not what you see through the standards
throughout all Collier County. You have land that's used primarily for
models. It's the -- it normally attracts them because of the busy
highway that's there. It's a wonderful place for it. It needs -- this
Page 121
June 28, 2005
particular company's been with Golden Gate for, oh, golly, almost two
generations now, and --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that George Schmaeling?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's -- remember the happy
ads there on the -- we haven't seen them in a long time. They've done
a lot for the community. And I think when we have businesses that
are doing a good job, we need to be there to support them.
So I make a motion we approve staff recommendations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And including the Planning
Commission's recommendation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion to approve, seconded
by Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, I can count the
votes, and I think this is -- this is where the community wants it. But I
just have a question. You had a neighborhood meeting, correct?
MR. SCHMAELING: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And did any of the neighbors
show up? And was there any comments?
MR. SCHMAELING: We had one neighbor that was really just
unaware of what was going on, why the sign was up. And he came
over and just asked a few questions, and then he was happy with it,
and he went back home.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So he was supportive of it?
MR. SCHMAELING: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In the location of the model
home, which I have the viewer up now looking at it, you have model
homes both on the north and south of you?
MR. SCHMAELING: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you're putting in a sidewalk
for the kids to get to the bus stop?
Page 122
June 28, 2005
MR. SCHMAELING: Yes, sir. It will consist of about 630 feet
of sidewalk completely along the frontage of 13th Avenue Southwest.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you can't -- can you put a
model home down one of the side streets in Golden Gate Estates?
MR. SCHMAELING: I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It has to be pretty much on an
arterial roadway or collector?
MR. DeRUNTZ: No, sir. It could be placed on one of the side
streets, but you wouldn't have the visibility as they would, and that's
why they're all locating on arterial roadways.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. It's not because of -- they
probably wouldn't get approval from the Board of Commissioners
because they're using a type of use directly into -- and impacting the
neighborhood, would it?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that would be part of it.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think Mr. Schmaeling
made a commitment that he wouldn't ask for another extension,
because he is very limited on where he can go.
MR. DeRUNTZ: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all I have to say. I'm
ready to vote on the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Coletta to approve with staff recommendations and the
CCPC recommendations, which I believe are identical, and the second
by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
Page 123
June 28, 2005
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 in opposition. It
passes 4-1.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, do I also have some direction to
bring back a change to the Growth Management Plan that talks about
model homes?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have at least one, two, three --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, we need to do
something in this case of Golden Gate Estates because it is very
limited of where they can locate. And I think Florida Homes, this is
the third site, maybe fourth site in Golden Gate. And when they have
to relocate, you're going to -- you're going to have a group of people
that probably won't like that use next to them. So where it is is -- the
neighbors don't obj ect to it. And as long as they're a good neighbor
like Florida Homes, why not continue approving it?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've got three nods.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, thank you.
Item #8C
ORDINANCE 2005-34: PUDZ-2004-AR-6258, ELIAS BROTHERS
COMMUNITIES AT PALERMO COVE, INC., REPRESENTED BY
DWIGHT NADEAU, OF RW A, INC., AND CHUCK BASINAIT,
OF HENDERSON, FRANKLIN, STARNES & HOLT, P.A.
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM THE AGRICULTURE ZONING
DISTRICT TO THE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT
Page 124
June 28, 2005
DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT TO BE KNOWN
AS PALERMO COVE PUD, CONSISTING OF 131 ACRES AND A
MAXIMUM OF 524 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS. THE
PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF WOLFE ROAD, WEST OF
COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951), IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP
48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA -
ADOPTED W/STIPULATIONS
Sir, that brings us to item 8C. This item was continued from the
April 26th, 2005, BCC meeting. This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members.
It's PUDZ-2004-AR-6258, Elias Brothers Communities at
Palermo Cove, Inc., represented by Dwight Nadeau ofRW A, Inc., and
Chuck Basinait of Henderson, Franklin, Starnes, and Holt, P .A.,
requesting a rezone from the agricultural zoning district to the
Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district, to be
known as Palermo Cove PUD, consisting of 131 acres and a maximum
of 524 residential dwelling units.
The property is located north of Wolfe Road, west of Collier
Boulevard, County Road 951, in Section 34, Township 48 south,
Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Will all those who will give
testimony in this petition please rise to be sworn.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Very well. Ex parte disclosures for the
commissioners. I'll start with Commissioner Henning this time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No further than the last time we
heard this item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I do have some. I've spoken to
a number of people, but mainly because my daughter works for Elias
Page 125
June 28, 2005
Brothers and I wanted to see if there would be in any way any type of
a conflict or anything. She doesn't work in the sales of homes or
construction or anything like that. She just -- she works in the design
center. But still, I wanted to make sure that there was no conflict at
all.
I've talked with our County Attorney. He has talked with the
Attorney General in Tallahassee and checked with the ethics
committee, and there is no reason that I cannot vote on this.
So I just wanted to put that on the record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
I have had numerous meetings with the petitioners, I have talked
with staff, and I have received some telephone calls.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I've had meetings, talked
to staff, received phone calls.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The only thing that I've had is I've
talked with staff and I've gotten e-mails on this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Very well. Petitioner?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich
Yovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. With me today, if you have
further questions, are Clark Leiming (phonetic) from Elias Brothers;
Chuck Basinait from Henderson, Franklin; and Dwight Nadeau from
RWA.
You've heard this petition before, so I'm not going to go into a lot
of great detail. I just want to -- the reason this was continued, as I
understand it the first time, was we needed a little bit more detail on
the gap housing aspects of our petition.
Just briefly, as you will recall, this is a 524-unit project. We're
requesting four units per acre. We're not asking any density bonuses
for this proj ect.
We had proposed originally that we would include 10 percent of
Page 126
June 28, 2005
the units as gap housing. We had not had a lot of detail in the PUD on
how we were going to address gap housing. We also had committed
to a donation of $250,000 to address affordable housing.
We had also agreed that we would limit our access point to
Vanderbilt Beach Road and not 951 until 951 is completed. I just
want to make sure that that's all part of what's before you today. That
has not changed.
We have in front of you a PUD that goes into much greater detail
on the intermediate gap housing as we're defining it. This is the first
project to go through and actually try to incorporate this into the PUD.
Essentially it's for people who make between 100 percent and
125 percent of the median income. We have put restrictions on
people's ability to sell the units that basically mirror your current
affordable housing program, so there's a limitation on the sale for 15
years. They're allowed to make five percent a year. And if they sell
before that for more than five percent a year, they make a payment--
they split the profits with Collier County, and that will hopefully be
used by Collier County to help keep the stock of gap housing in the
available units.
We had talked about, the last time, about a phasing schedule that
would be 20 units per month starting in September of '06, and in
October 1, '07, we would be eligible for remainder of units without
any other kind of a phasing. That's still in the PUD. That was what
we proposed before.
With that, unless you have specific questions -- I believe your
planning commission recommended approval unanimously, the EAC
recommended approval. We hope we have addressed the concerns
about gap housing, put a lot of meat on that, and hopefully it can be
used for future proj ects and future discussions regarding potential gap
housing.
I forgot one thing. Not only the $250,000 donation to affordable
housing. We have agreed to provide Habitat for Humanity with a
Page 127
June 28, 2005
five-acre parcel on Tree Farm Road, which is near where they're going
to be doing some housing up on Immokalee Road.
So with that, I think we are addressing the full spectrum of
housing with our proposal, and we would request that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the project as I've outlined it.
And if you have any specific questions, we'll be happy to answer
that -- those questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You stated gap housing was going
to be 100 to 125 percent. For our listening audience, what price range
are those homes going to be, the 10 percent of those homes?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, Commissioner, I could tell you that
you're talking about people who make about $80,000 a year for a
family of four. I'm sorry?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: A family income of 80,000, not on an
individual salary.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, family income -- a family of four,
the family income, assuming all four worked or if only one worked, it
would be approximately $80,000. The general rule of thumb is, under
standard financing, you can afford approximately three times your
gross income. So under standard financing, unless we can find --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Two hundred forty thousand?
MR. YO V ANOVICH: Right. Unless we could find some other
competitive financing that can help people afford a higher priced
house. That's the general rule of thumb.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So -- and what you're looking for --
I believe the planning commission said that there would be no
Certificates of Occupancy until October 1 st, 2007.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're requesting that -- you would
like to start in September of '06 with 20 homes a month.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
Page 128
.~--
June 28, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And so that's telling us that in -- by
October of 2007, you're going to have 240 units already CO'ed; is that
correct?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's correct. I think actually it works
out to be 13 months, so it would be closer to 260. But when we -- at
the Planning Commission there was access out onto 951, and there
was concern about traffic going north to Immokalee Road.
We have advanced the construction of Pristine Drive from our
proj ect to bring the proj ect south onto Vanderbilt Beach Road far
enough west from the intersection of 951.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I believe -- maybe Norm
Feder could give us some direction. Right now we're in -- we are
working on Vanderbilt Beach Road, and in a short time we should be
working on 951 north of the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road.
And what's the impact going to be if we go ahead with the possibility
of -- if we decide to go this way, of putting 20 units a month on there,
which would be 260 units, as I was corrected here?
MR. FEDER: Again, for the record, Norman Feder,
Transportation Administrator.
Commissioner, to your question, this proj ect meets both
concurrency because of the road projects underway already on
Vanderbilt Beach Road and on 951, and consistency.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: When do you anticipate the
completion of Vanderbilt Beach Road and also the completion of 951 ?
MR. FEDER: Vanderbilt Beach Road, as you know, was let a
little while ago. By the end of this year we should have the section
between the Airport and Livingston completed.
I'm a little bit over a year out from having the section from 951,
which is near this area, and Logan completed, and then a year after
that. So it's about two years out before we'll have all of Vanderbilt
completed as far as construction.
But it's under construction right now. And, of course, in our
Page 129
June 28, 2005
process I have to look at not only what is capacity out there today but
what's under construction or programmed for construction within two
years. 951 is programmed for construction late this calendar year.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So do you feel that if we approve
what the petitioner has got before us today that it's going to impact
that road system even though it's under construction, impact it to the
point that it's going to be detrimental?
MR. FEDER: No, with the 20 units coming on and with the
capacity we have out there and what we're doing, it's going to be
under construction. There will be some impacts in that sense. But I
think you have a provision in here that they will not use 951
immediately.
Their initial access will be to Vanderbilt, and we're much further
along on that project than we are on the 951. But both are within the
requirements under the concurrency and consistency.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Construction of Pristine, is that
going to be a public road?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's going to be a public but being
constructed with private dollars.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So who on the Board has
an angst of putting stipulations of phasing when there's no concern
from our transportation? We're getting a public road built for free.
Does anybody have any problem with the phasing? Because
that's a monetary -- or somebody has to monitor it and enforce it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, this is what the petitioner
presented, and I think that obviously he feels that this is his timeline,
and I think this is what -- we ought to recognize that and approve just
the phasing portion of it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is that all, Commissioner
Page 130
June 28, 2005
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Norm, you didn't -- you didn't
answer the other part of Commissioner Halas' question.
When is 951 scheduled to be completed?
MR. FEDER: It will be a little later this calendar year to go to
construction.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Little later this calendar year we go
into --
MR. FEDER: Into construction, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- construction?
MR. FEDER: It's not under construction yet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When will it be completed then?
MR. FEDER: It will be about two years of construction.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: About two years from later this
year?
MR. FEDER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Now if this phasing is taking
place, how will that affect level of service?
MR. FEDER: Well, again, what I understand you have in front
of you is they are not to proceed on further development until 951 is
completed. That will assist us, again, both meet our concurrency, but
as Commissioner Halas and the rest of the board is wrestling with,
we're under construction, other traffic impact it, so I think you've got a
phasing here that reduces some of that impact even though they meet
the criterias.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So your answer is, it's really not --
MR. FEDER: I think you've better -- you've got better than even
our own provisions right now in what you have in front of you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. My last question --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to make a motion for
Page 131
.,-».....-
June 28, 2005
approval under this phasing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I ask just one more question
though?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My last question is, how will--
Richard, how will they be phasing in the gap housing?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think we committed to, as we bring
them on -- it would be in the same phasing. In other words, 10 percent
of the units that we bring on at 20 -- at 20 a month would have to be
gap.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see. Okay, fine, yes. That's--
it wasn't clear --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, it goes with the phasing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- in my summary.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It goes with the phasing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Would our -- if
something went terribly wrong and our road capacity couldn't be built
for some reason, would our checkbook concurrency kick in on this?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are you asking me or Norm? If you're
asking me, the answer's yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm asking Norm, yeah. I mean,
he's got to --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The answer's yes. We would be where
we were earlier today where we'd have to come solve the problem.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. That's the only question I
had. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'd just like to clarify a couple of the
details. I heard someone say that phase two wouldn't start until such
time as the construction on 951 was completed. That's not what this
executive summary says.
Page 132
"..,._,,-,-....,'''_.~..-._..-._.....,-_.,.,.--,,-'~~..+.._~".,,,.._-~-~,_.--,,-,''''',,.----''
June 28, 2005
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, and that's not -- what it says -- the
commission -- it was an outside date. It would be the earlier of
completion of 951 or October 1, 2007, was the Planning Commission
-- because we were told that's when 951 would be completed was
October 2007. So we put an outside date in there for when we would
actually have that happen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But even though we might be late
on this, you couldn't get a Certificate of Occupancy on those houses
on phase two if there was a concurrency problem?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If there's a concurrency problem, no, we
could not get a CO.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But you could begin construction
on them if you wished --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- at that point in time?
And you indicated some contributions for affordable housing.
And among those was five acres to Habitat for Humanity?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You had some monetary contributions
that you were going to make?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What were those?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It was a $250,000 contribution to --
Barbara Cacchione has an entity that's doing some affordable housing
out in Immokalee. We have an agreement signed with her that
commits to the payment of $250,000 if the zoning is approved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So in summary, what we have is
a phasing schedule --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- which is part of the staffs
recommendations, gap housing requirements, which also are part of
these recommendations, five acres to Habitat for Humanity, and
Page 133
June 28, 2005
$250,000 payment to Empowerment Alliance--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- is that right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I think I'm supposed to mention that
the sign for the fire district that's going to be on our property is going
to be illuminated. Did I get that right?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's going to be eliminated or
illuminated?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: What?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Illuminated.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what I said, illuminated.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Illuminated.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: What did I say?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I thought you said eliminated.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Illuminated.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I liked eliminated better. Okay.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think I've got it. Go ahead, Norm.
MR. FEDER: My apologies. I think you were given a very good
summary of what you have in front of you. Just one clarification.
This is a PUD rezoning. They would then have to come back to us at
the time of the final plat or plan to seek adequate public facilities
certification, and that's where your concurrency would kick in. But
everything else you've got is underway.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Understand. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What was this affordable housing
for in Immokalee?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Empowerment Alliance.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The Empowerment Alliance. Barbara
Cacchione has been acquiring less than sufficient housing in
Immokalee and is replacing it with decent housing for people out
there, and we're assisting her through a donation. And I can't
Page 134
June 28, 2005
remember if it's 30 or 60 days after the zoning, but we have --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could you give me some
background on Barbara Cacchione?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, sure, if you want me to. I mean,
she used to actually work with the county in comprehensive planning.
She's very involved with a group that's involved in the redevelopment
of Immokalee, and she's very active in the Immokalee community on
behalf of her group. It's a not- for-profit organization.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's enough.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's a very well-established organization.
It's reputable, so you're not throwing money away.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. We're careful about that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Okay. Did we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'll make the motion that we
approve the phasing here of 20 units a month with five acres to be
donated to Habitat for Humanity, also $250,000 to Ms. Barbara
Cacchione's 501C-3, I imagine it is, affordable housing in Immokalee,
and I guess that covers the gamut of things.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Five acres, too.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The five acres, I think, was in the motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I got that in there, five acres for
Habitat for Humanity.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. We have a motion by
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it as long as it
includes construction of Pristine Drive.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's included in my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. Commissioner Henning
has seconded.
Page 135
June 28, 2005
We have one public speaker.
MS. FILSON: Yeah. Sam Durso.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sam, do you want to talk us out of this?
DR. DURSO: I don't think so.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Sam waives.
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. It passes
unanimously.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you.
Item #8D
ORDINANCE 2005-35: RZ-2003-AR-4961, SOUTHERN
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. REPRESENTED BY JEFF L.
DAVIDSON, P.E., OF DAVIDSON ENGINEERING, INC.,
REQUESTING A REZONING FROM "A" RURAL
AGRICULTURAL AND "C=2ST" COMMERCIAL
CONVENIENCE WITH A SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY
ZONING DISTRICTS TO "C-3" COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE
ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY 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 -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item,
Page 136
June 28, 2005
which is 8D. This item was continued from the June 14th, 2005, BCC
meeting.
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-2ST commercial
-- commercial convenience with a special treatment overlay zoning
district to C-3 commercial intermediate 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. The property consists
of 6.07 plus acres.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Will all those intending to
provide testimony in this hearing please stand and be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Ex parte disclosure, we'll start
with me. I have met with the petitioner and with staff concerning this
issue, and, of course, we have heard this issue once before, at least
once before.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Of course, being in my
district, I've heard it numerous times, met with numerous people, had
numerous e-mails, and sat in on a meeting yesterday between staff, the
petitioner, and the residents of Falling Waters, which was very
productive, as you'll soon see.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have no ex parte on this text item,
8D.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've gone to see the property,
and actually I've only had a meeting with the petitioner's
Page 137
June 28, 2005
representative. That's it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No further ex parte.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're ready to go.
MR. THORNTON: Good morning -- afternoon. I'm Chris
Thornton with Treiser, Collins, and Vernon. I'm here today
representing Southern Development Company, who's the applicant to
this rezone petition.
I wasn't here representing the petitioner the last time they were
here. I have since been engaged by the petitioner and have submitted
a representation affidavit to staff to be included in the file.
The application -- I'm also joined today by Mario Curiale, the
president of Southern Development Company, and by Kelly Michele
Smith from Davidson Engineering.
What we're doing today is a 6.07-acre rezone. I believe that it
was brought forth at the Planning Commission hearing that the zoning
map is actually incorrect. It's currently a C-I. So it's a C-I and ago
rezone to C- 3.
I think that you'll agree that the staff report, as it has been
amended since the last time we were here reflects that staff is
recommending approval of this petition with the conditions that staff
have inserted into their staff report and executive summary.
Although we might talk today about -- we might refer to phase
one, phase two, and phase three, Mr. Curiale's company has acquired
this property in several different acquisitions and actually has obtained
two prior rezone petitions. Those properties are adjacent. But all we're
focusing on today is the 6.07 acres that's the subject of the petition.
The Falling Waters residents that we have been working with and
that we met with yesterday, their primary concern has to do with the
wall that Mr. Curiale has been telling them all along that he was going
to build. When he did his first phase, it had the wall. When he did his
rezoning on the second phase and put his SDP application in, it has the
Page 138
June 28, 2005
wall in it.
The wall so far has only been built up to the extent of phase one.
The rezoning today will allow Mr. Murray -- Mr. Curiale to follow
through with what he's told the Falling Waters people that he would
do, and that's to take that wall that gives them protection, a buffer -- it
will allow him to take that wall and continue it all the way along phase
one, phase two, and phase three.
Without the rezoning on phase three today, because part of it is
zoned ag., Mr. Curiale cannot build that wall. The Falling Waters
residents want that wall; they've been asking for that wall for a period
of years. There are a few of them here today that we met with
yesterday. I don't think they'll speak today unless you ask them to.
But we met with them yesterday. We agreed to a series of
conditions that Mr. Curiale was willing to agree to.
This is a straight rezone. It's not a PUD. But with your consent,
the petitioner is willing to agree to these stipulations, in addition to the
stipulations and conditions that staff is recommending.
And these came out of a meeting yesterday that we held in
person and through a conference call with four or five different
representatives with different associations, condo associations, master
associations from Falling Waters, and with Commissioner Coletta and
Joe Schmitt.
The first condition that we agreed to is that the rear building
setback on the northeast boundary where the wall's going to be is
going to be 60 feet. There will be no buildings closer than 60 feet to
the Falling Waters property. The buffer wall on that rear property line
will be installed 10 feet inside our property line, and we will be
landscaping and irrigating both sides of that wall, as shown in the
rendering that we provided during the meeting.
We agree that there will be no building permits issued for
structures or buildings on phase three, the six acres that's the subject of
today's petition -- no building permits for that phase until the wall is
Page 139
June 28, 2005
completed, the landscaping is completed, and the irrigation is
completed and in operation along the entire length of phases one, two,
and three.
Number four, the wall for phase three, Mr. Curiale has promised
that if the rezoning is granted today, he will have that wall completed,
landscaped, and irrigated within 90-days of the issuance of the
building permit for the wall.
Number five, any trash enclosures on phase three -- and there
will be trash enclosures because there's going to be a restaurant and
offices on the property. Any trash enclosures will be screened from
view from the direction of Falling Waters as required by the LDC.
So those were the items that the Falling Waters people asked us
to agree to. We have agreed to all the conditions that they asked for.
We think that it shows the developer has gone to significant lengths
over a period of years to attempt to satisfy the concerns of the
residential neighbors.
So partly -- with respect to Falling Waters, the rezoning petition
today would allow us to give them what they want. Without the
rezoning today, that wall will never go because this property's zoned
ago The wall will stop and they will not have complete protection
from the commercial development that's going to happen on the 41 --
41 strip.
I'd like to point out that this property in your comprehensive plan
-- your comprehensive plan creates these activities centers. That's
where commercial development is supposed to go. This property is in
activity center number 18. Activity center number 18 at the
intersection of 41 and 951 specifically provides that it can go up to
100 percent commercial. That's what this property's designated in
your compo plan.
If Mr. Curiale doesn't get this rezoned to commercial, somebody
eventually will unless you change your whole Compo Plan set-up to
not have the activity center concept. This is designated as an activity.
Page 140
June 28, 2005
It's where commercial's supposed to go, and we're proposing to just
rezone this to commercial.
This is an area where we believe services are needed. There are
offices proposed here; there's a restaurant that's likely going to go in.
It's a straight C-3 rezone. With the conceptual site plan that we are
showing, we anticipate having offices and at least one restaurant,
about 6,000 square feet.
We think that with the traffic coming from Marco, the traffic out
there, it's just a good place where restaurants are needed and where
offices are needed.
One of the stipulations the staff has put in there is that in -- over
and above transportation impact fees, this property will pay its fair
share of improvements to 951 and 41 as they occur.
And the last point is that with respect to transportation policy 5.1,
last time we were here, I believe, transportation staff was either not
fully supportive or not clearly supportive of the petition. The
executive summary clearly reflects now that the transportation staff
are supportive of the petition because the petitioner has agreed to a
condition.
He knows that if you give him the rezoning today, that he will
not be able to get a plat, a site development plan, or a building permit
other than for the wall, for any structures or improvements on phase
three until the concurrency's there. He is agreeable to that condition.
He knows that it could be some time, but he is agreeable to it.
So this proj ect, if you approve the rezone, will not have any
physical or real detriment or impact on any of your roadways until
such time as the concurrency's there for it. There's a condition built in
to protect the roadways from any impact from this proj ect.
And that wraps up my presentation. I'm available, Mr. Curiale's
available, and Kelly Smith's available for questions, if you have any.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commission Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll wait till I hear staffs, and I'll
Page 141
June 28, 2005
then ask questions. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Staff presentation.
MR. DeRUNTZ: For the record, Mike DeRuntz, Principal
Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development
Review.
This petition, as mentioned, is in activity center 18, and the
growth management plan is in a mixed-use activity subdistrict. There
was a hearing by the Environmental Advisory Council on January the
5th. They recommended approval. They did have a stipulation that
they would review the site development plan when that is prepared to
-- is submitted, and they'd have an opportunity to review that plan.
They are incorporating a portion of the preserve area to meet
some of the mitigation requirements from phase two, and I believe an
easement's already been prepared for that.
There was a neighborhood information meeting September 2nd.
In that there was concerns about heights and what type of wall was
going to be there, and the owner of the property was very willing to
try to address those concerns and meet those.
As was mentioned, the Planning Commission recommended
denial because it didn't meet policy 5.1 of the transportation element
of the growth management plan.
This, as was mentioned by Chris, the Transportation Department
has revised their recommendation of policy 5.1 that they feel that the
conditions that have been agreed upon by the petitioner will satisfy the
criteria, that no development will occur on the property other than the
construction of the wall until the concurrency is met.
There was five conditions that was identified in the staff report
and in the executive summary. And with the -- I would like to add the
additional five that was reached with the meeting yesterday as part of
the approval of this rezoning request.
And staff is recommending approval.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
Page 142
June 28, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It seems to me if this is ag., it's
zoned presently ag., there's no real reason why that wall can't be put
up, even under ag., since this gentleman owns it. Being an old farm
boy, you either had a wall up or you had a fence up.
MR. DeRUNTZ: You're correct, sir. One of -- the problem is
with the C-IST overlay criteria, to place a structure on an ST area,
you would have to go through several steps with the environmental
review staff and getting approval with --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, he's going to have to do that
anyway, right?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Well, with this rezoning, the ST overlay is
being removed.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So you mean to tell me it's more
difficult just to put a fence up or a wall up than it is to --
MR. DeRUNTZ: Or in an ST area, yes. You have to -- there are
several steps you have to go through and get state approval because of
that environmental sensitivity of the area.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And so I'm also under the
understanding that if we approve this, that there will be no activity as
far as him getting the site development plan and the permits and
everything else to build the wall, but there will be nothing else that
will be -- this doesn't entitle him to impact the road there until -- at
such time as that road now becomes concurrent; is that correct?
MR. DeRUNTZ: That's correct, sir.
MR. MUDD: Sir, plus at the site development plan, the
Environmental Advisory Council, it has to come back to them for their
review, because they want to take a look at that because it is an ST
that's being overruled by a C-3. So that's another -- that's another
stipulation that's in the staff stipulation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just a couple questions, please.
Page 143
June 28, 2005
Was the wall originally supposed to be complete on phase one
and phase two?
MR. DeRUNTZ: It is -- it is a requirement in the land
development code to have that type of buffer between commercial and
residential, and --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But it was originally supposed to be
been done for phase one and phase two?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes. And phase two hasn't been approved yet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see. So on the phase one,
which is his, he already has that --
MR. DeRUNTZ: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- standing? So he's complied with
everything?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that correct?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That's all right.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You can't tell the difference
sometimes.
The second thing is, are there landscaping standards, it just says
that he'll have landscaping on both sides of the wall with irrigation,
but are there certain standards that he must follow?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, ma'am. It would be a type B buffer, and
they would have to meet that requirement for the number of trees and
spacing of the hedges and so forth.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And my third and last
question is -- and, of course, the big thing that always bothers me is
the roads. And is there -- let's see. Let me check on this traffic
analysis thing.
In this report on page 4 -- and there are three dots there. The
third dot it -- where they say, the proposed change will not create or
Page 144
June 28, 2005
excessively increase traffic congestion, and yet transportation analysis
said just the opposite. Can you tell me why?
MR. DeRUNTZ: I'd like to have transportation address that.
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, Transportation Planning. Because
assuming the original rezone they were going to build at that time and
then have an impact on the roadways, based on the stipulation now,
they will not be able to build until we have the capacity identified.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And everybody understands
that until there's the capacity there, nobody can be putting shovels in
the ground?
MR. SCOTT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And this is another case,
Mr. Scott, where checkbook concurrency would kick in, even if
everything else came loose around the edges? So we do have a
measure of security to be able to go forward with that?
MR. SCOTT: Right, as we'll see. I mean, if by chance someone
sends in a site plan, we say no, there's no capacity.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This has been quite an
interesting venture. I see two of my friends from Falling Waters out
there who have been through the thick and the thin, through the
yelling and the screaming and many, many meetings that took place.
And I think we've reached an agreement that brings a sense of
balance between the needed commercial and the neighborhood.
And I'd like to make a motion at this time for approval to include
-- also to include the staff recommendations and the agreement
between the developer and the residents of Falling Waters as part of
that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion by Commissioner
Coletta --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
Page 145
June 28, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- for approval to incorporate not only
staff recommendations, but the stipulations agreed to by Southern
Development Corporation and Falling Waters, and those stipulations
were read into the record, and I presume the people from Falling
Waters will agree to that, and there's a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion by --
MR. THORNTON: May I make a comment?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you want to talk us out of it.
MR. THORNTON: For the protection of the Falling Waters
people, I just want to make sure that your approval, although it won't
let us do anything else, that we can do the wall.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, that's part of the staff
recommendations. That's--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's number one in the staff
recommendations, so we've got that covered. But thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. All in favor, please signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Opposition by Commissioner Henning.
It passes 4-1.
Item #8E
ORDINANCE 2005-36: PUDZ-2004-AR-6919, HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC. AND EUGENE U.
Page 146
June 28, 2005
FREY, REPRESENTED BY COASTAL ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS, INC. REQUESTING A REZONE FROM THE
RSF-5(3) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR A
PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE REGAL ACRES PUD TO
ALLOW FOR A MAXIMUM OF 184 RESIDENTIAL UNITS;
AND, CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF AN
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT
AUTHORIZING THE DEVELOPER TO UTILIZE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING BONUS DENSITY UNITS (IN THE AMOUNT OF 74
UNITS AT 2.0 BONUS DENSITY UNITS PER ACRE) IN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROJECT FOR LOW-INCOME
RESIDENTS THAT WILL DESIGNATE 100 PERCENT OF THE
UNITS AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 36.75 ACRES, IS LOCATED ON
THE WEST SIDE OF GREENWAY ROAD, EAST OF COLLIER
BOULEVARD (C.R. 951), AND NORTH OF U.S. 41. THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN SECTION 12,
TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA - ADOPTING CCPC'S RECOMMENDATIONS
INCLUDING TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION STIPULATION -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 8E. This--
keep it down, please. Brings us 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-6919, Habitat for Humanity of Collier
County, Inc., and Eugene U. Frey, represented by Coastal Engineering
Consultants, Inc., requesting a rezone from the RSF-5, parens 3,
zoning district, to the Residential Planning (sic) Unit Development
(RPUD), zoning district, for a project to be known as Regal Acres
Page 147
June 28, 2005
PUD to allow for a maximum of 184 residential units and
consideration and approval of an affordable housing density bonus
agreement authorizing the developer to utilize affordable housing
bonus density units in the amount of 74 units at two bonus density
units per acre in the development of this project for low-income
residents that will designate 100 percent of the units as affordable
housing units.
The subject pro -- excuse me. The subject property consisting of
36.75 acres is located on the west side of Greenway Road, east of
Collier Boulevard, which is County Road 951, and north of U.S. 41
the subject property is located within Section 12, Township 51 south,
Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Will all those who expect to give
testimony in this petition please stand and be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It would have been easier to ask those
people who weren't going to provide testimony to stand.
Okay. Ex parte disclosure by commissioners. Commissioner
Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I had a passing meeting with Dr.
Durso and his fine wife about a week or so ago on this issue, and I've
also talked with staff on this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I've had meetings, e-mail,
and also discussed this with staff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I have had no recent meetings
concerning this issue, to the best of my knowledge, although I meet
with Mr. -- Dr. Durso a lot and talk about Habitat for Humanity. I
don't know that we've talked about this one in preparation for this
meeting, have we, Sam?
DR. DURSO: Not recently.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
Page 148
--..-
June 28, 2005
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. A couple years ago I met with
the Habitat people as they were first presenting this to the
homeowners in that area, and I met there in support of Habitat and the
project. Also, I have spoken with a few residents in the area, as well
as gotten an e-mail, and I've spoken to staff on it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that was when Sam promised he
wouldn't come back and ask for more density, right?
DR. DURSO: I would never promise that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: None.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Okay. Let's proceed.
MR. MURRAY: All right. It sounds like we have a few people
here to speak, so I'll try to be as brief as possible.
MR. MUDD: State your name, sir.
MR. MURRAY: My name is Don Murray. I'm a planner with
Coastal Engineering Consultants. Dr. Sam Durso, representing Habitat
for Humanity of Collier County is here, and Reed Jarvi, transportation
planner, if you have any questions for us after I'm finished.
This PUD is located approximately three miles east of County
Road 951 on Greenway Road about eight-tenths of a mile north for
both -- U.S. 41. It's 37.5 acres. It has access from Greenway Road--
and let me flip it over.
The PUD will have two points of ingress/egress from Greenway
Road, which also has a road network including a cul-de-sac and a loop
road and a couple of lakes for retention, and also the project will
provide a floodplain compensation area and preservation on the west
side that exceeds what's actually required by county.
The project also will provide a tot lot somewhere in the central
location for recreation for children.
And in addition to that, this project -- or this PUD was originally
Page 149
June 28, 2005
a subject of a rezoning, as you stated earlier, 2003. It is combined
with another parcel, the southern 10-acre parcel, to combine for the 37
and a half acres. Both were rezoned in 2002, 2003 for RSF -5 with a
cap of -- a density cap of three units per acre.
This project came back in. We submitted last year. There was
adequate road capacity for the project. Unfortunately, by the time we
made it here, there appears to be no capacity. Like I said, I'll keep it
brief.
This project meets all policies, goals, and objectives of the compo
plan, the growth management plan of Collier County, except for the
one that staff has pointed out in basing their recommendation for
denial of the project, and that's based on the transportation
concurrency.
We believe that there is -- there is -- there are reasons to go
forward and approve this project, including the fact that the client's
project at the -- which is formerly the Henderson Creek PUD, Trail
Ridge now is what it's called, has reduced their density on that project
almost to the equivalent number of units as to what we're asking for on
this project.
The PUD also -- excuse me. I'm getting a little dry. The PUD
also will provide -- I should say the project and Habitat for Humanity
will also provide impact fee credits of $7,250 per unit for 24
residential units along Greenway Road to offset the water and sewer
connections.
This proj ect also was reviewed by the Housing Authority. They
recommended, I believe, 7-0 unanimous approval, a recommendation
of approval. The Planning Commission also reviewed this project and
recommends by unanimous decision to approve this PUD.
I think I've stated everything that I could in a brief time, so I'll
yield to Dr. Durso.
DR. DURSO: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Dr.
Sam Durso. I'm here representing Habitat for Humanity. One minor
Page 150
June 28, 2005
correction. Gene Frey's name is mentioned here, but the land -- we
have title to the whole land now. He passed title to his portion of land
about two months ago, so he's not part of this petition.
As you know, we need affordable housing. We've certainly
talked enough about it in the last six months. We were very
disappointed to be rejected at the San Marino, and that was 278 units
that -- no, 178 units that will never be built. But it's just purely
numbers here.
At Trail Ridge, which is three miles east of here, we were
approved for 280 units, and we're only building 204, and the reason is
because we're doing our attached villas there or duplexes. And to get
the higher density, we would have had to have gone to fourplexes,
which we didn't want to do.
But those 280 units have all been counted in the county's 500 per
year number. They're already counted, but they're not going to get
built, and our site development plan is just about to be approved on
that project, and it's only 204 units.
So all we're asking is take those units and put them out here.
And when I did come before you folks two years ago, I remember
Commissioner Coyle asked me, Dr. Durso, are you giving up your
right to ask for density bonus? I said, no, I will never give up that
right. I mean, this is what we plan right now. And, of course, three
years ago when we planned, land was more readily available than it is
now.
There's two problems. One, we can't find any more land. These
are the last two pieces of land that we have in this area of Collier
County. Trail Ridge and this piece. There's nothing else. We can't
find anything else. We're probably not looking for anything else but --
because we've kind of gotten the message. But there's nothing else in
this area.
We also have two pieces of land now because of your help a little
earlier in North Naples. But the total of those two parcels is only 15
Page 151
June 28, 2005
acres. There's 10 acres on Wood Crest and the five acres that was just
approved earlier. That's not a lot of units.
The rest of our land is all in Immokalee, and we've got lots of
land in Immokalee, and we're going to keep buying land in
Immokalee. But we need affordable housing closer to jobs, and that
impacts traffic.
And if we get to the public speakers, my wife's going to speak.
But one of the big problems we have right now in our office, we've
had to change our long-range plan, and we built 150 houses last year.
And of those, we built 100 here in the East Naples area.
Our plan for next year is to only do 40. If we have Trail Ridge,
which is only 200 units, and that's all we really have, if we do 40 a
year, it will last us for five years.
So what's happening now, homeowners are coming into our
office. We get 1,500 applications a year. And we're telling them, you
cannot have a house here. If you want a house, we'll build you one in
Immokalee, and so we're moving people back out to Immokalee,
which is a shame, and obviously that's going to impact the roads.
We will not build these units until we meet traffic concurrency.
That may be at least six years from now. It may be 10 years from
now. It doesn't matter. We need to have them in our inventory so that
when we finally do meet traffic concurrency out there, we can build
the extra units. So it's just a matter of numbers.
The planning board listened to us and, surprisingly, voted
unanimously to support this project, and that really uplifted us and
made us feel happy going forward.
We would love to have a unanimous decision to approve this
decision, to send a signal to the people in Collier County that all of us
do care about affordable housing. So please, let's have your support.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sam, I have a question for you. In
regards to the proj ect where you said that you're not going to be
Page 152
June 28, 2005
building what, 280 units?
DR. DURSO: We have -- no, we're approved for 280. We're
going to build 204. So that's 76 units difference, and here we're asking
for 74 more.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could we bargain here whereby
you won't build any -- you said that you were willing to give that up,
but I don't think you should give it up --
DR. DURSO: We've already given it up.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You already have?
DR. DURSO: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was going to say maybe we could
barter here whereby you can take these particular units you're not
going to built at this time, transfer them down there, and then a later
date when concurrency is -- then you can fill out the rest of it.
DR. DURSO: No. The site development plan is already
finalized for that development. And it's -- you know, we need to start
building units, so we have to start construction on the 204 there. That
would delay things if we tried to do it. There's no more land there to
build on.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So what you're saying is
you want this approved today, but your intent is not to do any building
on there until such time --
DR. DURSO: We can't build until the roads are approved, and
whatever that is. I mean, you'll hear from the road people, it may be --
it will be at least six years from now. It will probably be longer than
that.
So we just want something -- and that way if we build 40 a year,
we've got five years' work here. What we'll then probably do is go
and build the two pieces of land we have in North Naples, and that
will keep us going for a few more years.
We don't want to stop completely in coastal Collier County
because it's going to affect us from our, you know, volunteer
Page 153
June 28, 2005
standpoint. And we will build. We're going to build 100 houses in
Immokalee next year. We plan to do that. But that's going to impact
the roads also.
And, you know, I'm worried that five years from now we're going
to be coming forward with projects in Immokalee, and we're going to
hear the same thing that we hear now on these proj ects, that traffic is a
problem. That's a worry for us down the road, but--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're working on that right now,
Sam.
DR. DURSO: We're here to -- you know, you know what we
are. We're the best Habitat in the world. We do a good job. We just
need your help. We don't need a lot of money. We just need some
zoning approvals, and that's what we need, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Dr. Durso, I just wanted to cover some
of the stipulations that were included in the prior --
DR. DURSO: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- approval, and that is to limit the
density to the smaller southern portion of three units per acre and to
have an attached garage.
DR. DURSO: Yeah, these -- all-- as a matter of fact, all of our
units at Trail Ridge and at this development as well are a new plan
that we're just getting approved now, which is essentially the same
house we always build, which is about 10,050 (sic) square feet, but it's
got an attached garage in the front with a little porch in the front.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You didn't mean 10,050, 1,050
square feet.
DR. DURSO: One thousand fifty square feet.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, 10,050 square foot--
DR. DURSO: That would be pretty good.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- that would be a bargain, wouldn't it?
DR. DURSO: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're really going to have to modify
Page 154
June 28, 2005
that particular condition though, aren't you? Because are you going to
require -- you're not going to limit it to a density of three units per
acre?
DR. DURSO: Well, it comes to five units an acre.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. With the bonus--
DR. DURSO: This density's five --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: With the bonus?
DR. DURSO: With the bonus it comes to five units an acre.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, but the original approval was for a
maximum of three units per acre--
DR. DURSO: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and it will all be affordable housing?
DR. DURSO: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a reason that all 184 units can't
be affordable housing?
DR. DURSO: Oh, they're all going to be affordable.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They are?
DR. DURSO: These are all Habitat, 100 percent affordable
units.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All 184 of them?
DR. DURSO: All 184.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
DR. DURSO: That's what we do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I just --
DR. DURSO: No, they're all affordable; 184 will all be
affordable units, all be for, you know, low income.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Good.
DR. DURSO: That's all we do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's what I thought. I thought
maybe you were just trying to make some money on the side.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No gap housing, huh?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
Page 155
June 28, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, if you want to
approach this a little bit differently, I'd be willing to make a motion as
far as -- I know we have speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me check on the speakers. How
many speakers do we have, eight speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would those eight speakers please rise?
And how many are you from Habitat for Humanity? All of you? Sit
down. No. There's one who is not from Habitat. Are you going to be
speaking on behalf of Habitat for Humanity? You're going to oppose
the development? Okay.
W e'lllet you speak. Okay.
Okay. You want to make your motion now or want me to get --
have the speakers?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you'd have to close the
public hearing and then re-open it again.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I haven't even opened it yet.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, if it's not inappropriate, I'd like to
make a motion at this time that we -- for approval based on staffs
recommendations.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Approval by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And a second by Commissioner Halas.
Let's have the first speaker.
MR. MUDD: Sir, can you get the staff piece of this, please?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have to?
MR. MUDD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You have to do that.
MS. DESELEM: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry. Go ahead.
We'll get to the speakers in just a moment.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's been a long day.
Page 156
June 28, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MS. DESELEM: Thank you. For the record, Kay Deselem, and
I am a Principal Planner with the Zoning and Land Development
Review.
This particular petition does have an unusual element to it in that
staff is recommending denial based on compo plan issues, the GMP
findings with 5.1.
And we just wanted to make sure that you understood that we are
basing our denial on that GMP amendment; however, the conclusion
that's on page 4 of the executive summary notes that it is consistent
with the future land use element map and it is consistent -- and it is
consistent with the housing element, however, it's not consistent with
the GMP transportation element.
And I wanted to bring it to your attention that in order to
recommend approval of this, you would need to make a finding
similar to the one that was made by the Planning Commission about
timing being the mitigating factor.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But that's one of the staffs proposed
stipulations in the executive summary. So if we accept the staffs
recommendation, we will be incorporating that get mitigation,
transportation mitigation in the motion.
MS. DESELEM: Actually, no --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No?
MS. DESELEM: -- because staffs recommendation is for denial,
but the Planning Commission's recommendation is for approval, and it
does include that stipulation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So if the motion maker were to include
the CCPC's recommendations in a motion to approve, it would
accommodate the transportation mitigation by delaying a development
order approval, right?
MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Page 157
June 28, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then I do so.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And my second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- has made a motion to approve with
incorporating CCPC's recommendations, and Commissioner Halas has
seconded.
Let us have the one speaker who's going to be speaking in
opposition, please.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I would suggest that there were a
couple people that weren't Habitat. If you could just have the folks
waive if they --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm going to get to them. Yeah, I'll get to
them.
MS. ROGNRUD: Hi. I'm Marlee Rognrud, and I'm a resident
on Greenway Road. And I'm not sure which remarks are appropriate
to this meeting. But as far as I know, the residents in that area are not
in favor of the development at all, which I guess that's not the question
today, but the increased density would even be worse of an impact on
us.
It would, you know, change the whole character of our
neighborhood, the traffic, the construction traffic, the water and sewer.
It would just change our area. And I just felt like I needed to come
today and say that.
And it's not a matter of, you know, not in my back yard because
we have Charlie Estates, we have Trail Ridge within three -- you
know, three miles of us. And -- but it's like in our back yard, it's in
our front yard, and we just -- we want our property values to increase,
and just don't feel like it's good, you know, for our neighborhood to
keep adding and adding and adding.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I understand.
MS. ROGNRUD: And that's it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. Thank you for
Page 158
June 28, 2005
. .
comIng In.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ma'am, do you understand that this
development probably won't take place for about five to seven years,
whenever -- whenever we address the road issue out there?
MS. ROGNRUD: Yeah. And I was glad to hear that, but I
mean, I plan to be there the rest of my life.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I ask you, what would you
think the property would be best used for?
MS. ROGNRUD: I'd like to see it continued the way it is. I
mean, most everything else out there is one unit per five acres,
although I guess on that side of Greenway with the rural fringe, there
is like one acre maybe density, and I'm not real sure on that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, this one has already -- has long
since been rezoned, so it is not at that acreage. It is actually multi --
it's zoned multi-family with five units per acre with actually three
because of a deduction, but it is a multi-family zoned property.
MS. ROGNRUD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So if it really stayed at it's present
zoning, it could go to -- pretty close to the same density.
MS. ROGNRUD: As it's approved currently --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MS. ROGNRUD: -- or with the bonus?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, as it is approved currently.
MS. ROGNRUD: Okay. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Now, with respect to those people who are going to be speaking
in support of the project from Habitat from (sic) Humanity, I'm not
going to deny you the right to speak, you can speak if you like, but is
it possible just to -- for us to say we acknowledge your support, we
know how many people there are who support it, and we know why
you support it?
Page 159
June 28, 2005
Now, if there's someone who insists on speaking, by all means,
you can have 30 seconds.
MS. FILSON: Mary Ann Durso?
MS. DURSO: I'll waive.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: She waived.
MS. FILSON: Jorge Lago?
MR. LAGO: Waive.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He waives.
MS. FILSON: Philip Reed?
MR. REED: I'll waive.
MS. FILSON: Pat Jelk?
MR. JELK: Waive.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Michael Werner?
MR. WERNER: I'll pass.
MS. FILSON: Jeff Cecil?
MR. CECIL: I'm not with you.
MS. FILSON: He will be -- Jeff will be--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion for
disapproval here.
MS. FILSON : Jeff will be followed by Kathy Patterson.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can blame it on Jeff if this thing
goes down --
MR. CECIL: Kathy will waive. I'm not with Habitat, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, you're not? Oh, okay. Well, you're
sitting with them.
MR. CECIL: I'm the chairman of the Affordable Housing
Commission, Jeff Cecil.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Jeff.
MR. CECIL: I was sitting with them because they came in and
just surrounded me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I see.
MR. CECIL: Thanks a lot.
Page 160
June 28, 2005
Just briefly. Just -- we took this up at our last meeting, at the
Affordable Housing Commission meeting, and we did vote to
recommend approval to the board, so I felt that it was necessary for
me to be here to let you know that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Thank you, Jeff. Appreciate that.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Kathy Patterson.
MS. PATTERSON: I waive.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I will close the public hearing
now.
MR. WHITE: Just two items. Assistant County Attorney Patrick
White, Mr. Chairman.
First, with respect to the actual rezoning request, you'd heard
from your staff that there was a concern on the transportation division
and overall with respect to inconsistency with policy 5.1. I think it's
clear but it's probably worth mentioning on the record that by agreeing
to that CCPC timing provision, you're effectively creating a mitigating
stipulation that would result in consistency with the policy.
The second point is that I would ask that the motion maker and
second also include or have a separate vote on the affordable housing
density bonus agreement itself. There are effectively two petitions
subsumed within this one application.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I add that to my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can we do it in a single motion?
MR. WHITE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's added to my second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta has added
the affordable housing density bonus approval to his primary motion
recommending approval of this petition incorporating the CCPC's
recommendations, and Commissioner Halas has seconded it and
included those elements in his second.
I will close the public hearing.
Page 161
June 28, 2005
Commissioner Fiala, you have a question?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Just for the sake of
clarification. It says, we want to do this according to timing. Tell me,
what does timing mean? Do they mean that when the road is -- when
the road is built or when it's approved, or -- you know, I don't really
know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't we clarify that by saying
when it meets the concurrency requirements; is that satisfactory to
you?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would that be okay with you?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's in the motion. That's the
recommendation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And no further discussion.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Let's take a 10-minute break. Thank you.
(A brief recess was taken.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Item #lOH
Page 162
---...' _.__.~--."-'~
June 28, 2005
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD BID #05-3833 TO ENCORE
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR THE NORTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT (NCRWTP)
APPURTENANCES FOR MID HAWTHORN ZONE 1 WELLS
114N, 115N, AND 116N, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,690,000,
PROJECT NUMBER 710111-APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 10H. It's a
recommendation to award Bid Number 05-3833 to Encore
Construction Company for the North County Water Treatment Plant
Appurtenances for Mid Hawthorn Zone One Wells, which are 114
north, 115 north, and 116 north, in the amount of$1,690,000. It's
project number 710111, and Ms. Guliani will present.
MS. GULIANI: Good afternoon. My name is Karen Guliani,
and I'm from Public Utilities Engineering. I'm a Principal Project
Manager. Thank you for your consideration. I have agenda item here
10H and also 10I, both for raw water wells.
Our first recommendation, for award of this Bid 05-3833 to
Encore Construction Company in the amount of $1,690,000 to furnish
and install site, mechanical, electrical, and structural work necessary
for three new Mid Hawthorn Wells. These wells will be for the '06
season.
We ask also that the chairman authorize to execute the standard
construction contract with Encore Construction Company after
thorough review and approval by the County Attorney's office.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Questions by commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No questions.
Does anybody have a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta.
Page 163
June 28, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great presentation.
Item #10I
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENT AND AWARD BID #05-3807 TO D.N.
HIGGINS, INC. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF WELLS 35 AND
36, IN THE AMOUNT OF $954,720, PROJECT NUMBER 701852-
APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner, next item is lOr. It's a
recommendation to approve the necessary budget amendment and
award Bid Number 05-3807 to D.N. Higgins, Inc., for the construction
of Wells 35 and 36 in the amount of $954,720. It's Project Number
701582.
And again, Ms. Guliani will present.
MS. GULIANI: Thank you. Again, for raw water wells in
support of the '06 season, we ask for staff recommendation to approve
the necessary budget amendment to transfer funds from another water
user fee project in the amount of548,176 to this project, 701582, for
the construction of these two lower Tamiami wells.
Page 164
June 28, 2005
Second recommendation is approve the award 05 -- of bid
05-3807 in the amount of nine thousand -- $954,720 to D.N. Higgins,
Inc. And lastly, to authorize the chainnan to execute the standard
construction contract with D.N. Higgins, Inc., after thorough County
Attorney review and approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any questions or discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #10J
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,000,000 TO
INITIATE A NEW PUBLIC UTILITIES PROJECT TO DESIGN
AND CONSTRUCT A F AILING WATER MAIN ON US 41 FROM
RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD TO BAREFOOT WILLIAMS
ROAD PROJECT 71059 (USER FEES) - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 10 --
MS. GULIANI: Thank you.
Page 165
June 28, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- 10J, which is a recommendation to
approve a budget amendment in the amount of $4 million to initiate a
new public utilities project to design and construct a failing water
main on U.S. 41 from Rattlesnake Hammock Road to Barefoot
Williams Road. Project 71059, which is user fees.
MS. SRIDHAR: Sandy Sridhar.
MR. MUDD: Yeah. Sandy--
MS. SRIDHAR: Sridhar.
MR. MUDD: -- Sridhar will present.
Now, Commissioners, I will also make note that you had an item
on the consent agenda where you -- where you killed a bid for
landscaping on U.S. 41, and it was because of this water main break
that we basically thought it would be better not to -- not to continue
with that bid amount and suspend it per se, and then continue with a
water main project that would go in the median, get some irrigation
sleeves put in as they put this water main in, and then continue the
landscaping project afterwards, after this is complete.
Go ahead.
MS. SRIDHAR: Thank you. For the record, name is Sandy
Sridhar, and I'll be presenting Agenda Item 10J.
Staff recommends approval of replacement of 12- inch water
main with a 16- inch water main, for a total cost of $4 million.
This is the project location, and it's approximately three miles
long.
This is a critical water main and is a primary feed for Lely
Country Club and Naples Manor. This main also provides a loop feed
and resolves pressure problems which are most evidence during
periods of high water use.
This is a cast iron pipe originally built in 1972. And so far, we
have had four breaks in the last two years.
This is a stress crack. This is some of the pictures we did, we
took during the repairs. A stress crack on the water main, losing
Page 166
June 28, 2005
pavement due to the break. Weare replacing with a new pipe, traffic
detour, and traffic jam due to the repairs, and road closures due to the
break.
Repeated water mains like this create disruptive service to our
customers. Extensive road damages causes hazardous driving
conditions, increasing the operating costs, and it's important to replace
this water main in order to deliver reliable service to our customers.
This cast iron pipe is no longer an industry standard, and we are
trying to replace all the pipelines with either PVC or ductile pipe.
During the repairs, our staff found signs of pipe thinning adjacent
to the repairs. The age of the pipes and the fact that it's on solid rock
are contributing factors to these breaks.
In order to avoid such breaks, public utilities is mandating
full-time inspection on all of the pipeline projects and strictly
enforcing utility standards.
The scope of this project is to replace a 12-inch water main with
a 16-inch water main in the median of U.S. 41 from Rattlesnake
Hammock Road to Barefoot Williams Road. We are also studying the
possibility of constructing this water main in the same trench, and this
will also avoid conflicts with the other utilities. We are increasing the
pipe size to 16 inch in order to eliminate the bottle neck.
Estimated cost of the labor and material is approximately $2.3
million. Engineering and inspection cost is estimated to be $200,000.
There is rock, and we are estimating about a million dollars for the
rock excavation. Contingencies are about $500,000, for a total cost of
$4 million. This project will be funded by user fees.
At this time we are requesting approval to start engineering and
design for this project. Soon after the public utilities will go for formal
bid for construction. An executive summary will be presented to the
board in October of '05 for the construction of this project, and we
expect approximately 120 days of construction time.
Commissioners, your staff respectfully recommends approval of
Page 167
"_.~-",.,,---_..-- ,.'"
June 28, 2005
this project amendment to begin the design of this project.
At this time I'll be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You've answered part of it. The
bid, will that be a competitive bid for both the design and the
construction?
MS. SRIDHAR: No, sir. The design is approximately $50,000,
so it can go under annual contract.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you need to back up. I
seen -- I thought it was 100,000 for--
MS. SRIDHAR: No. The construction cost is 200 -- $2 million.
And engineering and inspection is CI, that's the construction
inspection, is $200,000 of which engineering itself is $54,000. I have a
proposal in hand for that. And the construction inspection, since we
are mandating full-time inspection, they work 10-hour days for 120
days, so that will cost up to $150,000.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, the rock excavating, are
you talking big boulders? I mean, that seems a lot of money for --
MS. SRIDHAR: Yes, sir. We are going to try and geotech
investigation during our design, and we'll hopefully find less rock than
it is. So this is $1 million for -- it's almost like -- you know, we don't
know at this stage how much rock is present in that median, and we
would have to find out how much it is and how much it will cost.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any other questions by
commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion for approval by Commissioner
Halas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
Page 168
June 28, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous.
MS. SRIDHAR: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ms. Sridhar, thank you very much.
Item #lOK
A DRAW OF $27,000,000 AGAINST A PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED LOCAL GOVERNMENT POOLED COMMERCIAL
PAPER PROGRAM LOAN AGREEMENT; DESIGNATING THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TO BE THE AUTHORIZED SIGNOR OF THE DRAW
AGREEMENT - APPROVED
Commissioner, that brings us to 10K. It is recommendation that
the Board of County Commissioners approve a draw of $27 million
against a previously-approved local government pool commercial
paper program loan agreement designating the chairman of the Board
of County Commissioners to be the authorized signor of the draw
agreement.
And Mr. Tom Wides will present, who's the Director of
Operations for Public Utilities.
MR. WIDES: Commissioners, good afternoon. As Mr. Mudd
noted, Tom Wides, Director of Operations, Public Utilities.
Page 169
June 28, 2005
I'm here today to request your approval of a $27 million draw on
the previously-approved water and sewer district commercial paper
loan program, which was previously approved in total for $70 million.
This approval was originally procured on May 28th, 2002. At
that time we approved the $70 million. The specific purpose is to, in
fact, fund water and sewer capital proj ects.
There have been no draws on this $70 million program prior to
today. And, again, we're expecting the interest rate on this current
draw to be in the range of about 2.5 percent per annum, however, it is
a variable rate and it can change. At 2.5 percent, it will be
approximately $60,000 per month.
This -- this draw will fund water projects, both impact fee
projects and user fee projects. And the recommendation here today is
to, in fact, approve the draw of $27 million and to designate the
Chairman of the Board to authorize -- be the authorized signature on
the draw agreement.
Are there any questions I may answer?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just to clarify one thing. I had asked the
staff a question about whether or not this entire $27 million had to be
drawn at one time, and they've assured me that, no, they're monitoring
when they need to draw.
MR. WIDES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that right?
MR. WIDES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it would be for a number of different
projects. You're going to monitor, whenever you need the money for
the project, you're going to draw however much you need?
MR. WIDES: Commissioner, if I may clarify.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, okay.
MR. WIDES: We are making a single draw for $27 million.
Some of these projects are currently ongoing. As an example, the one
that Ms. Sridhar just mentioned to you, $4 million. We will be using
Page 170
June 28, 2005
this commercial paper to fund that project.
There are also additional proj ects that are out there today, plus a
fund balance that requires a total draw of 27. So it will not be a
piecemeal draw of, say, five and then four and then three. It will be
$27 million at one time. And we expect to absorb this within the next
six to nine months at most. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. WIDES: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any other questions by commissioners?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I will-- for the record, I will state
that the $70 million executive summary came forward to the Board
before Commissioner Halas was on the Board of County
Commissioners, and I made sure this -- even though this is an adjunct
to it, if you look back, Public Utilities has waited three years before
they made a draw, so they've been very frugal and very diligent about
making sure that they only drew when they had to draw in this
particular -- on that 70 million, and this is the first increment, and then
they'll wait and see if they need to make another draw against it.
But the reason it's on the regular agenda -- I had a commissioner
say, well, why didn't you keep it on the consent? Because
Commissioner Halas didn't get to see this particular item when it was
approved the first time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you.
No questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion for approval by Commissioner
Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 171
June 28, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MR. WIDES: Thank you.
Item #lOL
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) WITH
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
FINAL PLAT AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS (PPL) FOR
AR#6399 (3500 CORPORATE PLAZA, KRAFT CONSTRUCTION
- MOTION TO GO BACK TO EAC - DENIED; MOTION TO
APPROVE W/STIPULATIONS -APPROVED; STAFF TO
EXPLORE HAVING AL TERNA TES FOR THE EAC -
CONSENSUS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this bring us to item 10L. It is a
recommendation to approve -- it is a recommendation to approve
environmental impact statement (EIS) with staffs recommendations
associated with the final plat and construction plans for AR#6399,
which is 3500 Corporate Plaza, Kraft Construction.
And Mr. Joseph Schmitt, the Administrator for Community
Development will present.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, administrator of
community development/environmental services.
In that this is a petition similar to what would be presented before
the Environmental Advisory Council, as we do in the Environmental
Advisory Council, we turn it over to the petition -- petitioner to
present the petition in regards to what they're asking this board to do.
So I will turn it over to the petitioner to present their design submittal.
Page 1 72
June 28, 2005
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. For the record, I'm Wayne Arnold.
I'm with Grady Minor Engineering. We're the engineering firm of
record for the plat that is the subject of the EAC review. And with me
I have Mike Delate, Special Engineer from our office, we have
Rayanne Boylan with Boylan Environmental, and the land use
attorney that's been working with us on the project is Rich
Y ovanovich.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could I ask a couple of questions
for the attorney?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Attorney, this is kind of an
unprecedented deal for the Board of County Commissioners. I don't
know if there's ever been a time when we have acted on behalf of the
AEC (sic) board. Can you give me any guidance on this? Are we in
the realm of approaching this in the manner we should?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I appreciate the question. And this has
been placed under County Manager, and -- but you're right,
Commissioner, that typically this is a matter that would come before
the environmental advisory committee. There is a history to this.
I would suggest that Joe Schmitt or his staff provide the Board
and the public the history as to how it has not been heard by the EAC
at this point and that it has come before the board in lieu of going to
the EAC.
The Board has the opportunity or the option today to approach
this item with a couple -- couple directions, one would be -- and it
may be the one that I would advise if asked, would be that the Board
of County Commissioners hear the underlying facts as to why this
matter has not been heard by the EAC, but also hear some of the
elements and issues pertaining to the property, the request that's going
forward that the EAC would have heard, and have the opportunity to
ask questions and weigh in and provide some interpretative thought,
pragmatic -- pragmatic thought of the Board of County
Page 173
June 28, 2005
Commissioners in regard to these kinds of issues.
Because we know from the executive summary that unless the
Board takes a definitive action here today in the stead of the EAC, in
place of the EAC, that this matter will be heard by the EAC next week
barring that -- that change of events.
And so the Board has the option of providing some thoughts for
the record that may assist the EAC that would otherwise hear the
normal course of things as scheduled to hear it next week, or if you
ask me further, Commissioner Halas or others, I would be indicating
to you that it would probably be in the interest of this Board to make
some findings as to why the matter should not be heard by the EAC
and should be heard by and you.
Now, ultimately, the powers of the advisory committees come
from this Board of County Commissioners in a form of delegation. So
if a -- if a body such as EAC has an inability to hear something and
you determine, again, hopefully with further consultation with me,
that the underlying facts, issues, and governmental responsibilities
would better place the matter with the Board of County
Commissioners, I would attempt to advise you at that point in time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So it's your understanding that, as
far as you know, that EAC is going to probably meet next week, is
that correct, sometime next week?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, so I'm told. I've also been told that there is
a fair certainty that they will have a quorum and will be meeting next
week.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think that's where this needs
to really be directed.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other question that I have is,
on the executive summary there is a statement saying fiscal impact,
and I thought that basically -- fiscal impact related to an impact for the
county or for the citizens of Collier County. In here it says, a
Page 174
June 28, 2005
continued delay regarding the proceedings of this application will
increase the cost to the applicant. I have some concerns about that
statement.
MR. WEIGEL: Oh, okay. Well, I didn't prepare the executive
summary, but I read it just as you did. And what I would glean from
that, Commissioner, is, that apparently there is no fiscal impact to the
County or that would have been stated, and so this is the only other
fiscal impact that may have any relevance whatsoever.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to make a motion that we
should pass this back down to the EAC, who's going to be meeting
next week.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Halas.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: David?
MR. WEIGEL: Well--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then it's seconded. There is a--
let me explain -- let me make it very, very clear that I'm the one who
asked for this to be brought before us because I think there has been a
serious failure of the process here.
This thing first -- when it was first scheduled to be heard by the
EAC, the executive summary recommended approval, and then
suddenly before they met, up popped a long list of objections by one
or more staff members, so it was pulled from that agenda.
And then subsequently twice more there was an attempt to
schedule it before the EAC, and the EAC could not get a quorum for
the purpose of considering it.
Now, this is a lot on Pine Ridge Road that is virtually devoid of
any important environmental -- sensitive environmental land. And I
am concerned that we might have checked our brains at the door when
we started considering this issue. And rather than trying to find some
reasonable way to deal with it, started to find ways that you could
Page 175
June 28, 2005
deny it.
Now, there is at most, if I understand this executive summary, at
most, 1.65 acres of property that is likely to be desirable for
preservation for some reason or another.
And in the period of time that we've been dealing with this, we
probably could have obtained from the petitioner money for mitigation
where we could have had some meaningful preservation, but instead
we continue to focus on very technical aspects of the Growth
Management Plan and Land Development Code and delay the process
so the process is broken down.
So we are under considerable criticism, not only from private
citizens, but from developers, about the process in our development,
environmental services department. This is an example of what I
consider to be a severe breakdown.
If the Environmental Advisory Committee cannot get a quorum
to consider issues, I think it is our responsibility to step in and do
something about it. You just cannot let these things linger forever and
ever and ever, even if it is a developer who is being inconvenienced
and hurt.
As far as I'm concerned, you could take that entire property and
bulldoze it down and landscape it, and it would be a lot better than it is
right now, but yet we've been quibbling for three or four months over
technicalities in the land development code without giving any
consideration to a common-sense solution, and that's the reason I
asked it to be brought here, because it's the proper thing to do.
When we have a breakdown in our system, I think we need to do
something about it, and I'm not even suggesting that we approve it
today. That's not even necessary, in my opinion, but I think we need to
address the issue.
And I think Commissioner Henning was next.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, to answer why there's a
fiscal impact on this, this is an economic development fast-track
Page 176
---.- ~.,..~,.,-",,,,,.-._..._'-
June 28, 2005
permit that's been going on for over a year, so I think that's where you
see the fiscal impact.
The monies that we budgeted to the EDC, part of those monies
were spent on trying to get this to happen. So I think that we have
some fiscal responsibility.
And to further on what Commissioner Coyle said, when we have
a staff member in the environmental department that changes their
mind the night before the EAC, we have a problem, and we don't
know if that's going to happen again.
We don't know if the EAC's going to have a quorum. We have a
project that I feel that the owner might just throw up his hands and go
to Lee County, like others have, or seek annex into the City of Naples
like others has (sic) because of the permitting process, which I just had
another one come across my desk.
So we have to deal with situations in the county. I think county
-- or government should be more efficient, in my opinion, and I want
to deal with this issue today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I had a talk with somebody
from -- actually I had a talk with Nicole Ryan at the Conservancy last
night about this particular project. And actually -- you know, it's
located right on Pine Ridge Road, right there in all of this traffic.
This thing does not have environmentally sensitive land for
habitat. Let's face it, we're not going to have little animals jumping
around here. There are some water issues there. I believe that they all
could be incorporated into one for this specific project only. I don't
want to set any precedent for anything else, but I feel that -- I think we
ought to step up to the plate.
This is our last meeting for a month. We ought to step up to the
plate. How do we know that the EAC is going to a quorum when they
meet? And by the way, I have a real problem with that too, which I've
spoken to Mr. Mudd about it. And I asked him to get me a list of who
Page 1 77
June 28, 2005
all has been showing up to what EAC meetings.
I want to know here today on the record, how many people are
not attending these meetings, because we have a limitation of three
meetings missed, and then they're off the committee.
And this is an important committee. We take these committee
recommendations very, very seriously. And if it's for somebody's
resume or if it's a joke, then they don't need to be on that committee.
Enough of that. Mr. Mudd is going to give me that information. But I
think we ought to be moving forward on this rather than letting it sit
any longer.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, do you want me to put it up on the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'd love to see that.
Only one person has a perfect attendance, right?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
MR. SCHMITT: Ma'am, for clarification again, Joe Schmitt,
Administrator of Community Development/Environmental Services.
Over the last two and a half years, only two meetings have been
cancelled due to lack of a quorum. We've had actually five meetings,
but two of those staff cancelled because there were no petitions. And
one there was a lack of quorum. But, again, there was no land use
petitions, so actually only two over the last two and a half years.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's these two?
MR. SCHMITT: Have been cancelled. Actually, the June 7th
meeting for this petition was cancelled due to lack of quorum when
one member had a wife diagnosed -- who was -- cancer surgery,
another member has a son with a brain tumor, and a third member was
recovering from knee surgery in Texas.
So of the -- it's a nine-member panel. At that time we only had
eight. We need five for a quorum, and there were not five available.
So we attempted to reschedule the meeting for June 22nd. We were
unable to, again, confirm a quorum for June 22nd. And this -- as you
know, these are volunteers, and they meet only once a month, and we
Page 178
June 28, 2005
have confirmed that we have a quorum for the July 7th meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you only have seven people on
here. Do we have two openings?
MR. SCHMITT: We just -- we just filled those. We just filled
two more that were appointed by this Board, see they will be at the
meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And do these attendance figures count
the two that were just missed, the last two that were set to be --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- scheduled and could not be scheduled?
So the persons who have missed two times, they missed them the last
two times?
MR. SCHMITT: It only counts the last scheduled one. The June
22nd was not a scheduled meeting. It was an attempt to schedule a
make-up, so we did not count that because it was not counted in these
figures.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, if I could -- oh, I'm sorry. I didn't
mean to interrupt. But let me just use this to emphasize how important
it is for staff members to do their homework and get their
recommendations straightened out before the scheduled meeting.
Look at the trouble that has been caused by a staff member who
changed their mind the night before a meeting rather than doing the
homework and making sure it was properly communicated to
everybody. Had it been properly communicated to everybody,
perhaps we could have had the meeting two months ago or earlier.
And now because of that failure, we're into this kind of a mess
taking up our time and the time of lots of other people to try to
straighten it out, and that's inexcusable, as far as I'm concerned.
MR. SCHMITT: I understand. And Commissioner, and I can
get into the history --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Something needs to be done so
Page 179
June 28, 2005
this doesn't happen again.
MR. SCHMITT: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Something needs to be done so
this doesn't happen again.
MR. SCHMITT: I would accept any direction you want to go in
as to how you want to deal with EAC. If you want us to work towards
eliminating the EAC, combining those duties with the Planning
Commission, I'll --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think the problem is --
MR. SCHMITT: I need your direction.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- Joe, is a staff person's
recommendation changed at the bewitching hour.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, that recommendation was pretty much
what I worked out with the petitioner in several meetings trying to
figure out how we could make this proj ect work.
The County Attorney, in a phone call the night before the
meeting, discussed with me the legal difficulties that the petition had.
I made a ruling at that time based on the position that the staff
would be in, and basically recommending approval to what could be
deemed inconsistent with the Compo Plan, that was best to try and
meet with the petitioner and work out some of these issues.
It is -- it is the issues in the Compo Plan that create the problem.
And Commissioner Coyle, I understand and respect your position in
this, but it was -- it was a position -- I'm not trying to put a staff
member in front of an appointed committee member or appointed
panel and put them in a position of basically having to -- to not be --
well, basically to support something that was not deemed consistent
with the Compo Plan.
And this was a discussion the night before the meeting with
myself, my staff, the environmental director, and the assistant county
attorney and said, this is problematic, and it was pulled from the
petition in May.
Page 180
June 28, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But -- Commissioner Halas wants
to speak in just a minute, but let me finish up that point, Joe. You
know, when you get stuff to us the night before, we tell you that's not
acceptable.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And we tell you sometimes we're
not going to consider it because we don't have time to review it. You
shouldn't have a situation where something comes up the night before,
particularly after an executive summary's already been prepared which
recommended approval for this thing. You don't prepare the executive
summary recommending approval if you've got some concerns.
Now, the fact that the executive summary was prepared
indicating approval indicates to me that somebody didn't do their
homework, and waiting until the last day is just not acceptable, end of
story, and it shouldn't be acceptable to you as far as your staff is
concerned.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I also asked for additional
information. And I can understand the frustration by a couple of my
commissioners on the board.
But we went to great lengths prior to me becoming a
commissioner on this board and afterwards in addressing problems
with our Growth Management Plan and our Land Development Code.
Now it's my understanding that Grady Minor here is the
engineering firm on this, and I'm sure that they've had a lot of
experience in addressing issues here in Collier County.
As I look at what's in front of me, there are three LDC
amendments that they cannot meet. There is also two Growth
Management Plans that they cannot meet.
And when we looked at this piece of property, I believe, back in
December, we had to -- it was before us for a variance whereby there
was a setback because of the two pieces of property, and I think they
Page 181
June 28, 2005
had the opportunity at that time to combine both of these pieces of
property, and they decided that, no, they wanted to go with the
variance to where they had a zero side yard setback, and that was
approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
I think that the -- when I look at the LDC requirements and the
Growth Management Plan requirements, that they're not in
compliance with, it looks to me, and I'm not -- I'm not an architect and
I'm not a land developer, but it looks to me as though we have a
building that is too big for the property and -- with all the parking that
they need.
So there -- to me, there's two ways of addressing this issue if we
want to carry this forward. One is to downsize the building so that
they can address these land development codes and growth
management plan, and that is in regards to preserves and water
retention, or the possibility, if they leave the building the same size,
then to build a parking structure, end of problem.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think you can meet all the
requirements, can't you? That's what I though.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what I thought.
MR. ARNOLD: For the record, I'm not exactly certain what Mr.
Halas was referring to, but I know that we had extensive discussions
with staff between the time of our May 4th scheduled meeting and the
last meeting that was scheduled for June, at which time I believe we
internally resolved each and every one of issues that were expressed to
us that staff had concern, which was one of the reasons that they
conferred with the county attorney's offices relating to Growth
Management Plan and Land Development Code requirements.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I -- can I tell you what was
given to me by staff? And one of the items was that LDC amendment,
3.05.078.1, small e, double i, and the next one, I believe, was
305.07H.l.H. -- that's the second one. The third one is 3.05.07H.3A,
Page 182
June 28, 2005
and the Growth Management Plan, my understanding, is 6.1.1,
parentheses 3, and Growth Management Plan 6.1.1, and parentheses 9.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay. I do have that document. That was given
to us by staff probably two months ago now. And we responded in a
letter that Rich Yovanovich wrote back to Mr. Weigel, May 13th,
addressing staffs concerns, and it was my understanding that these
issues were put to rest, in which case we still have a recommendation
of approval from staff relative to our petition.
They've added, and we have now, a total of five conditions of
which I think we can live with, four of the five, with a modification of
one regarding a reference to some walls that I could certainly clarify if
we want to get into that level of detail and we're going to hear the item
today. But it's my understanding that we've dealt with and addressed
all the LDC and compo plan issues.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The understanding is that we have
to treat everybody equal. If we have laws -- rules and regulations,
whether it's a developer or whether it's just an individual that's out
there to try to develop his property for a home or whatever else,
everybody has to play by the rules. And I think that's all that really
we're at at this point in time is to make sure that everybody abides by
the rules that we set down.
MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. I agree with that, and I think it's
certainly been Kraft Construction, Mr. Posseshkin's (phonetic) intent
to apply the code as fairly and equitably to him as anybody else, and I
think we've sought no variances other than the setback between the
two PUDs. We believe fully that we're in compliance with your Land
Development Code and Growth Management Plan without exception.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I -- is there anything from staff
that they'd like to add to this?
MR. SCHMITT: If you want to get into the details, I'll have to
have the environmental staff cover some of the -- the issues. The issue
really here -- and I understand Mr. Arnold's position is, I'm stuck with
Page 183
June 28, 2005
enforcing the code, and that's where we continue on these situations.
As Commissioner Henning said, these take a long time, and
normally the ones that take a long time are the ones that we negotiate
over the code. And certainly, I believe this board wants me to do that,
wants me to uphold the code. There are certain things in the code that
I believe need to change, and we're going to bring them back to make
changes because they are not practical.
Commissioner Coyle mentioned the use of some of the code and
the application of the code on this lot, and we recognize that it needs
to change.
I think probably some latitude to provide either --
administratively for us to make should some of these adjustments may
be in order as well. But if you want to cover the specifics in regard to
the LDC and -- fundamentally I have no problem with the design. I
think it's an absolutely superb design. It functions. It meets all the
requirements.
Part of the problem was the increase in water retention that was
mandated, or at least they agreed to, from South Florida Water
Management District, and a 50 percent increase in water retention on
site. That created an impact on the preserves to create a need to use
the preserves for water retention, and that's where we get into this
negotiating.
Can you use preserves for water retention? Walls, which the
Code clearly states, walls cannot be in preserves. They need to put a
structure in the preserve which basically bisects, or in this case,
trisects the preserves, and it's not one contiguous preserve.
Functionally that's not a problem, but the Code prohibits that, and
there's no -- no way to massage it. If this Board wants a direct through
policy in some regards to help me get over that so this cannot be
challenged -- because, frankly, there is a potential that by staff
approving this, someone would have a legal foothold to challenge it,
and then that would create more problems for the petitioner.
Page 184
June 28, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I just say one last thing is, the
bottom line is that the -- what -- since there -- they had to increase the
water retention, stormwater retention on their property and not using
the preserve, this is what's caused the real problem; is that correct?
MR. SCHMITT: I'm not sure. I have to ask either Wayne or
Mike, Mike Delate, who designed it. Mike would have to discuss it
from a standpoint of how he integrated --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And so therefore if they use
something different in parking, then we can address the issue; is that
right? I really think it should go back to the AEC (sic).
COMMISSIONER FIALA: EAC.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me stop everybody for a second --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Before we address this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, if you don't mind. Let me just
clear up one thing. We've got a motion on the table not to hear this,
okay? We haven't voted on that motion yet.
So it's on the table. Does your second still stand?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think I've heard about as much
of this as I want to hear. It just didn't seem like we're going anyplace.
I mean, if somebody could offer an alternate motion and we had some
direction, then fine. But I -- it looks like we're going to be here
another hour and a half just play --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, you're not. No, you're not.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let's vote on the motion. I think it
should go back to the EAC.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I second that motion.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Mr. Chairman, we do have one speaker?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who's the speaker?
MS. FILSON: Nicole Ryan.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nicole waives.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And then I'll call the motion.
Page 185
June 28, 2005
All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
So the motion fails, a vote of 3-2, with Commissioners Coletta
and Halas dissenting (sic).
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that's good. We know
what we're not going to do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Or on the losing side at least.
Okay. Commissioner Henning, please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It seems like we're trying to
piecemeal questions instead of having a presentation that I think will
answer the questions, and I'm really getting confused of all the
questioning and what really the issues are. That's what I would like to
have is to understand --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's what I was going to
suggest.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- what the issues are so that I
have a more comprehensive understanding so I can take action.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I agree. Can we take the stipulations that
staff proposed to be considered by the environmental affairs
committee, Environmental Advisory Committee, and tell us how or if
you meet those?
MR. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold. What I've placed
on the visualizer is staff's recommendations that are found in your
executive summary packet for our project. There are five of those, as
you can see.
Items one and two are not a problem at all. Those are things that
we're in agreement with. And I don't know how much detail you want.
Page 186
June 28, 2005
Do you want some of the history, or do you want me to just deal with
these recommendations.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just deal with these recommendations.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay. On item number three, it says the
creative preserve planting plans should be modified to comply with
the following LDC requirement, and it references, a plant material
must be planted in a manner that mimics the natural habitat, okay.
And with that in the Code, we understand from staff, was simply
to add a note clarifying that the planting materials that are there will
mimic a natural plant community. It doesn't mean that they have to be
exactly what was there. It doesn't mean that it has to be at flat grade.
Our plan has a design that includes part of a berm within the
water management system that is going to be re-vegetated and put in a
conservation easement and to be preserved in perpetuity as a
conservation area. It's our understanding that we don't have to modify
that design. We're simply adding the notation. That's the clarification
that we want there.
Number four is the only one that we have any disagreement with
staff on, and I think it's simply a clarification. One, the walls that are
referenced, the trisecting, those were never included in the preserve
areas. They were excluded as separate tracts between the created and
the retained preserve easements.
We have three of those. Two of those really were more or less
retaining walls. We can modify our design to eliminate the two of
those, and those lie on the east and south boundary.
The third one is really a structural component that is a discharge
control for putting water back into a wetland system that we are
retaining. So it's really a water control structure more than it is a wall.
And it's our intent to clarify that we can remove two of those from
bisecting these preserve areas, and we will have a water control
structure noted on the plan before water discharges into our wetland
area.
Page 187
June 28, 2005
That's about as simple as I can make the clarification and the one
change that we would have asked the EAC to agree with us on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And had you been presented with those
two, three months ago, would you have been able to give the same
answer?
MR. ARNOLD: I think we would have, yes. I don't have any
reason to believe we would have been involved in redesigning the site
because of those.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. ARNOLD: Those design elements were components of our
plan, I believe, from very early on, if not originally. I could ask Mike
Delate to confirm that, but it's my understanding that they've been
there for months.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning, did you
have something further?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. These walls, water control
structures, or whatever, whatever they are, if the board approves, can
you and will you guarantee in recreation of this preserves that it will
not harm or -- the plant material planted in there, it will still be vibrant
just like it's supposed to be?
MR. ARNOLD: We can --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that's the intent of
preserves is, in this case it would be vegetation preserves.
MR. ARNOLD: Commissioner, we can. That's one of the things
that is required when we place the conservation easement over it, that
is has to be retained as native vegetation, remain exotic free, and that
it's not maintained as a landscape buffer. It's left to go wild once the
vegetation is established.
And keep in mind, we're dealing with certain areas that were
approved as part of these PUDs that were retained vegetation areas
where we don't touch it, we simply preserve it, and other areas that
were very explicit that we can go in, re-grade and re-vegetate these
Page 188
June 28, 2005
areas, which is exactly what we're doing. And I guess I should note
for the record, and I think your staff report does, there's more native
vegetation retained on these two parcels than your code requires.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- will you guarantee that
the plant material will survive, and if it fails, you'll plant at a
one-to-one replacement? You have a 14-, I5-foot tree, you'll replace
it with a I5-foot tree?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. We would make that commitment. I
think that staff will confirm to you that we have to provide a, I think
it's called a preserve area -- preserve management plan in which we
detail how we're going to manage this preserve. If that's not already a
component of our conservation easement to talk about re-planting
those, we'll certainly gladly incorporate that into it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can staff tell me if they're in
compliance with the three items in the Land Development Code, and
the two GMP, that I discussed earlier?
MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson, with
environmental services. The stipulations or recommendations in the
staff report, there are five of them.
Number one and number five are items that are not necessary in
terms of keeping this particular application consistent with the LDC or
GMPs; however, items two, three, and four are stipulations as a result
of direct conflicts with either LDC regulations or GMP regulations.
Let me just state on the record that we do have a difference in
opinion on item number three. And at the last major meeting that we
have -- or we had with the applicant, we did not agree but differed on
the interpretation of planting the recreated preserves.
The plant material shall be planted in a manner that mimics the
natural plant community and shall not be maintained as landscaping is
the language that's in the LDC. And staffs determination of the intent
of that language and the way that we have applied it since the new
Page 189
June 28, 2005
GMPs and the LDC amendment went into place is that they either
need to recreate a wetland or need to recreate a pine flatwoods,
however; creating a 27-foot wide berm that goes up on a four-to-one
slope to a five-and-a-half foot height is not recreating any pine
flatwoods that county staff has ever seen in the natural plant
community system.
Now, we understand that the staff -- as recommended here, that
staff has applied the current GMP and LDC amendments -- the
regulations, and if you find that the outcome of what the board wishes
to see is different than that, then we would respectfully request some
direction to make the appropriate amendments to the LDC so that
those amendments can be put in place for staff to apply in the future.
The other issue that we have a concern with -- or not a concern
with. The other issue that we have determined is not in compliance is
regarding the walls.
I know that Mr. Arnold has put on record that two of these three
walls could be removed. And I have spoken with their staff if -- if
those walls are removed, then I understand that they have to slope off
that five-to-one -- or that five-and-a-half foot berm, which is right now
on a four-to-one slope, they would have to slope further off that and
clear additional native vegetation and then recreate more.
I just want to bring it to your attention that the PUD documents
combined only permit the creation of a total of 1.2 -- 1.62 acres to
replant, be re-planted or recreated. That means that if they have to
clear more and recreate more, they are limited to only another .18
acres by their PUD. And so we were just applying the regulations.
And if you'd like to provide us with direction, we'd be happy to--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How long has this change been in
effect, these changes for the --
MS. BURGESON: The LDC amendment for that was probably
the first cycle in 2003. I don't know for certain, but I'd be happy to get
back to you on that.
Page 190
----- <.~"._--~,. '
June 28, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We hadn't had any problem up to
this point with the --
MS. BURGESON: We have consistently not approved any
preserves with proposed landscape berms. We have denied those for
any other petitioner that requests it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So everybody else would follow
the rule; is that correct?
MS. BURGESON: As we have been applying it. And if that's
not what this board wishes to see as the result, then we would need
direction on that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Has it caused a hardship?
MS. BURGESON: We have not had any other projects not been
approved. They've just moved the landscape berm to the outside of
the preserve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning, if you
wouldn't mind, I'd like to ask just a couple questions before you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I want to follow you
though.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, sure.
Why weren't these issues raised at the first proposed meeting of
the EAC?
MS. BURGESON: Well, these issues have been raised since the
very first time that staff --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, there is a signed executive summary
which says recommend approval that does not have these
requirements on it.
MS. BURGESON: Those concerns--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, why is that the case?
MS. BURGESON: Those concerns have been addressed since
the very first time staff put this application on hold, and I believe it's
been denied five times.
Page 191
June 28, 2005
Each time staff requested that the walls be removed from the
preserve and that the recreated area be created to mimic the natural
plant community.
It was the applicant's interpretation that they were doing that.
And our concern, as a result of that last major discussion or that last
major meeting, that their interpretation and our interpretation were
different. And so we recognized that we needed to discuss that, and so
we had four or five staff --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute. How did you get to an
EAC meeting with an executive summary that recommended approval
without these stipulations and it didn't change until the night before
the EAC meeting? How did you get to that point?
MS. BURGESON: Staff did have those concerns throughout the
entire process.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What process? When did -- when were
those concerns first put in writing?
MS. BURGESON: In the very first denial of the application,
which would have been last fall, and again in the second denial in
December.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then why didn't they show up on the
executive summary for the EAC meeting that was scheduled?
MS. BURGESON: Joe, can you--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Don't go too far. I have some
other questions.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I have -- I've been handed the May
4th, 2005, Environmental Advisory Council staff report, okay, and I'm
make this part of the record and the recommendation -- and I'm
looking through it fairly quickly.
Those stips. -- and I haven't read the environmental piece on site
or wetlands, but I can get back to the recom -- and it does have
preserve requirements in the PUD in that process, and then the final
recommendation based on those environmental issues and the site plan
Page 192
June 28, 2005
that are part of this plan, and that's the last page of it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And no additional stipulations? Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, I had several meetings with the
applicant, the applicant's team, my staff. We believed that prior to
going to that meeting in May, we had a full understanding of what
needed to be done, and that was the way the staff report was prepared.
We were looking to bring this to the EAC to present it to the
EAC and vet at least our policy disagreements in front of the EAC so
we could get a better understanding where the EAC thought we
needed to go.
The plan that was finally packaged and prepared to go to the
EAC still had the same problems we cited over a year ago, and that
was when my staff and the county attorney approached me and said,
we've got a problem, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When Norm Feder goes out and widens
a road, do you require him to do this or does he go out and -- by
mitigation?
MR. SCHMITT: Norm is under different rules. He goes through
the state and goes through the federal government. He has -- he has
all the mitigation requirements and he has all the permitting
requirements either through the state, through -- and through the
federal government. These are rules that you've put in place in our
GMP and LDC, and certainly I'm open to amend anyone of the rules.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You don't feel that you have the
authority to negotiate the mitigation on any of these issues?
MR. SCHMITT: There is no -- there is no authority in our GMP
or LDC to do any off-site mitigation. These are mandates that are
required. There's -- any commercial development, 15 percent of the
native preservation has to be retained. On a residential it's 25 percent.
There is no -- there is no latitude in the code to allow for off-site
mitigation.
Now, we're -- that's something I think we need to look at. But
Page 193
June 28, 2005
right now I have no process to do that, none at all, and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It seems to me that we do it all the time,
you know, whether it's affordable housing or some other kind of
mitigation, we require developers to make some contribution of some
kind to mitigate a situation that we think is unacceptable otherwise in
our Land Development Code, but perhaps you can't do that, but we
certainly could have. And I think it would have worked out a lot
better for the community as a whole because we could have done
something a lot better than what we're doing here.
Commissioner Henning, you've been waiting for a long time.
MR. SCHMITT: We're coming in in this next GMP cycle to
look at exactly that in the GMP to allow for off-site mitigation for
preserves.
Commissioner Henning has brought this up in the past as well
because of other issues that have come up for preserve requirements,
and we're coming to the board with that. And we're also looking at
water retention and other type of activities and preserves.
It -- some of these amendments were a result of the Governor's
order, and they're applied across the board throughout the county.
Some of them don't apply --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you have to understand the
significance of this.
MR. SCHMITT: I certainly do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's not just this one development. This
was a fast-track process, wasn't it?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, Commissioner, it was.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And how long's it been going on?
MR. SCHMITT: The rezoning started a year ago. They did not
pursue a rezone. And they applied for the variance, they got the
variance in December. So we've been working on the -- basically the
design since December in regards to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you understand what message that
Page 194
June 28, 2005
sends? We're trying very hard to diversify our economy here and to
create some more high-paying jobs. And I'm not saying this
development does that, okay, but it was a fast-track process.
And we've committed to doing fast-track approvals more quickly.
My only -- my real concern here is that we are, at this point in time,
arguing about something that staff alleges that they brought up the
very first day, and we still haven't gotten it resolved yet, and that's
crazy, you know. That's just not acceptable.
Commissioners Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't want to steer too far, but
I'd like to say, just on the overall picture of preserves in commercial
areas of five acres or less, what good is it? And that's something for
everybody to think about.
But what we have here and what I have in my book, the previous,
that you had on the visualizer, the recommendation, that the BCC
approved the environmental impact statement and staffs
recommendation.
MR. SCHMITT: That was the staff summary and staff report
prepared back in May. What you have in your packet is the staff
report that was prepared for the June meeting, and that was cancelled.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Today's meeting?
MR. SCHMITT: Actually it's the staff report that was --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So my concern, we went -- just
went through, by your staff member, a whole litany of concerns.
We're here at the last -- at the meeting, and we're still arguing, when
we have a recommendation of approval.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct, we have a recommendation of
approval with --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why are we arguing at this level
when we have so much work to do, two days? You know --
MR. SCHMITT: I'm not arguing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- we need to fix this.
Page 195
June 28, 2005
MR. SCHMITT: I'm just pointing out, Commissioner, where the
difficulties are, and I'm asking for your direction, if you need to
amend it. That's--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, I don't know what to do
at this point. I got recommendations of approval, I got, on this piece
of paper, stipulations. In my book that I spent the weekend, Thursday
through Sunday, reviewing, here I got recommendations to approve.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. What you have is what staff
proposed and recommended.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And now we're here arguing
about something, which I fully don't understand. I mean, we just had
a staff member up here for five minutes arguing about a whole bunch
of stuff which I don't understand, because I got a recommendation of
approval.
MR. SCHMITT: Recommendation of approval with -- based on
the stipulations that are shown here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I make a motion?
CHAIRMAN; COYLE: Yes, you can, at any point in time you
want to.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make a motion to approve
this with the stipulations that staff has set out. And I want to go on
record as saying, on this specific project only, we're going to make
these allowance because of the type of property that we're dealing
with, and -- but I want to make sure that it says on this record, this is
not setting a precedent. This is a particular problem with this
particular piece of land, and I don't want anybody coming back again
saying, well, now that you've done it, here's the door -- the door is
open.
But I make a motion to approve with all of that.
Page 196
June 28, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I'll second that motion with the
understanding that in stipulation number four, that the water control
structure may remain, okay.
Is that okay with you?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if -- part of that stipulation,
Commissioner, is, since we do have preserves in this commercial
district, re-vegetation of it, can we make sure that the management
plan, that vegetation will live?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, the problem is the staff isn't going
to let you do that because they're going to require that you take out the
-- wait a minute, Joe, just wait a minute.
MR. SCHMITT: If you approve it, we will go with it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I know, but one of the stipulations
is that you're going to require that they take out all irrigation after a
year, and the stuff mayor may not live then.
MR. SCHMITT: Oh, that's normally in part of a preserve,
temporary preserve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I understand it is.
MR. SCHMITT: It's temporary.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, well, I understand. It's to get them
established.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But you have a good dry year, and
maybe it's not going to do very well, and it's going to look really bad.
MR. SCHMITT: Then we'll leave it up. That's -- and Mike can
talk about the management plan. He's required to develop a
management plan and to ensure that it takes hold.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: So -- and if he has to leave it up because it
hasn't taken hold, that's not a problem. As long as you make these
Page 197
June 28, 2005
rulings and you decide you want to apply the rule for this case, we're
fine with that. I mean, that's -- discretion lies in your hands. Not
mIne.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And if I could ask for just one other
clarification. It's on number three, which your LDC says, is that the
plant material shall be planted in a manner that mimics a natural plant
community and shall not be maintained as landscaping.
It doesn't say we need to do a pine flatwood, okay. We don't
have to do that. What we're proposing is a plant community that
meets this definition. Your staff is telling us they don't accept that,
and we need clarification that you agree with our planting plan versus
staffs planting plan.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I agree with your planting plan.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was wondering. Is Nicole stepping
up there because she has something to add to this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: She already waived.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know that, but --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've got two commissioners who are
waiting to ask questions or make comments.
Nicole, could you wait for just a moment?
MS. RYAN: Sure. I just wanted to make sure I could speak
before you vote.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, then
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Halas was first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Chairman, I understand your
frustration in that we need to make sure that we address issues so that
we can fast-track things, but I don't want to get into a situation prior to
2001 where staff took it upon themselves to make some decisions that
ended up getting us and the people here in Collier County in some
Page 198
June 28, 2005
serious problems.
I think that everyone realizes that we have rules to play by, and I
believe there's a rule book that's available to anybody who's a
developer. And as long as they can sit down and go through the rule
book, if they have any questions, I believe they have the opportunity
at a pre-op to go through and then address these questions, and
hopefully by the first or second -- if they do it right, by the first
submittal, everything should be according to plan.
I just don't -- and I understand that we need to look at
fast-tracking, but we don't need to get into a situation where we're
fast-tracking and avoiding the rules and regulations that we set forth.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Halas, could I just --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Could I respond to that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- jump in for just a minute?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure, please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm so sorry to do this, and I know
that you're trying to keep order to this meeting. But one of the
problems is, many times when things don't follow through as they
should, somehow the communication drops, and that's something I've
been trying to encourage behind the scenes is that when people have
applied for a permit and they're refused, if our staff would work with
them and get that thing moving again instead of resulting in something
like this.
So I understand where you're coming from, and I back that, but I
say, we need to do more communication or have more
communication.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, hopefully with more staff
people coming onboard in this -- in this division, this will help
alleviate a lot of the problems. I really hope so anyway.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I briefly respond to that? It will be
very brief.
Page 199
June 28, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Very briefly.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner, it's not unusual that when
we submit an application, we get a list of comments from county staff,
and we sit down and talk to them about those comments, and
frequently we point out that maybe they're misinterpreting the rules.
We had these minutes -- we had these conversations, and on your
visualizer is the results of those meetings. We had a staff report that
said, no additional stipulations required. We had thought we had
addressed all those things. We had gone through the rule book. We
clarified interpretations.
N ow I find out that they were even not really going to honor that.
They were going to bring up other issues at the May 4th meeting if it
had gone forward on May 4th, without telling us on the staff report
that we hadn't resolved all the issues.
We did. We know the rule book. We sat down, we talked with
staff. It was a question of interpretation. It appeared on May 4th they
agreed with how we resolved it, and now we get some new
stipulations.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: When you talk to staff, are you
talking to the development staff, or you talking with the legal staff in
interpretation? It seems to me that some of these issues are -- probably
revolve around the legal department; is that correct?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Actually, I leave that to your staff to
figure out. If they think they need to involve the county attorney's
office, they're the ones living with the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS : Well, did you have any dialogue
with the attorney, with the county's -- attorney's office in regard--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure, we did. We did after it got pulled
on May 4th. We have a conversation after May 4th.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Before that? I mean, as you're
going through this and if you think there's a difference in
interpretation, do you go to the legal staff and say, I'd like to have
Page 200
June 28, 2005
what your --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We sat down -- we sat down,
Commissioner Halas, with Joe Schmitt and his staff to go through
their comments --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And is there a lawyer there --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- and we addressed all those.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- present?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't recall if there was an attorney at
that meeting or not.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's a lawyer.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, me. I was there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm talking about a lawyer
representing the county.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know who you mean, Commissioner
Halas. And you don't always -- you staff doesn't always invite an
attorney to the meeting because they don't necessarily think they need
one there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it's not your responsibility to go
make sure that he's there.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. It's obvious that our
system is less than perfect, and, of course, it always will remain less
than perfect. We can't put together a perfect system, but that's no
excuse for not trying to improve upon it.
There's a lot of concerns here. One, that we don't have our
committees meeting in a regular fashion to be able to address it, also,
the way staff comes up with recommendations. I've heard this before
where they pass down the recommendations to the petitioner, telling
them what has to be done, they resubmit their application, they come
up with new findings.
This is -- this is something that's been this way for as long as I
Page 201
June 28, 2005
can remember. But how we correct it, that remains to be seen. We
haven't corrected it here today. The only thing we did is fixed one
little spot in time, and we're moving on.
We've got to be able to approach this in a little broader fashion to
look at the whole picture. We solved -- we've solved the problem for
Kraft Construction. Maybe possibly solved it. I'm not too sure where
this is all going to end up. But everyone else is still out there. We've
got to handle this with a broader stroke of the brush than what we're
doing now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, all the commissioners do have a
report done by a consulting team from Florida Gulf Coast University
concerning our process and permitting and approvals, and in it it
discloses a lot of deficiencies that need to be addressed, and that's
probably a good starting point.
Nicole, did you want to -- yes, I would, but I'd like to -- Nicole
wanted to make a brief 20-second presentation.
MS. RYAN: Maybe 30 seconds.
Thank you, Commissioners. For the record, Nicole Ryan here on
behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
And I think the first issue that you have discussed, the EAC and
potential problems with having quorums at the meetings, the EAC is a
very important committee, so I hate to hear potential talk of maybe it
should be rolled into another committee or disbanded.
It's a very important committee. If quorums are an issue, then
perhaps the structure of what constitutes a quorum could be looked
into or alternates or something, but a very important committee to
have.
And, secondly, on this particular issue, the site needs to meet
both preservation and water management requirements, and to do this,
they're asking to essentially double up and have the preserve function
also as their water management, water retention system.
And it does prove some fundamental questions and potential
Page 202
June 28, 2005
compatibility questions. First of all, you're taking upland habitat and
you're going to scrape it down and create more of a wetland habitat so
that it can be incorporated into the preserve. And fundamentally, is
that what we consider preservation?
So that's an overreaching question that, perhaps, it's not that
important for this site, but it could be important for other sites in the
future, so it needs to be kept in mind.
There are some consistency issues, which staff has gone through,
and we certainly do support the staff recommended stipulations on
this. And I was a bit confused as to how that's playing out as far as
what the petitioner said they can do versus what staff requires.
I think also there's the concern that, yes, there is this exemption
clause that allows a petitioner to use the preserve as water
management, but there are really no set of criteria for that to say in
this case it's allowed or in this case we don't think that's such a good
idea.
And so I was certainly happy to hear Commissioner Fiala to
include the specific statement of, this is an exceptional case and here
are the reasons why and this shouldn't be used to set a precedent,
because I think that that is something that is very important.
Ideally, the Conservancy would like to see this site actually have
the site, the parking, the water retention and the preservation all
separately. We would like to see that; however, with the motion that
you've made, we certainly do support the staff recommendations and
the stipulations of why this is an exceptional site, and perhaps in the
future, some specific requirements could be incorporated into the
growth plan for when such instances might be considered.
And I also just wanted to mention, as I was doing research for
this, and it looks like there are some changes to the Growth Plan that
may be contemplated, there were some inconsistencies between the
Growth Plan and Land Code as far as the prioritization of what we
wanted to keep in preservation.
Page 203
June 28, 2005
I believe in the Growth Management Plan it started out with the
habitat being number one priority, but in the Land Development Code
it was wetlands. So there are some inconsistencies that probably need
to be cleared up, and I can chat with you or staff or someone on that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much, Nicole.
MS. RYAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I'm going to call the question, but if
you would indulge me just for a second.
David asked early on that we provide him with some rationale as
to why we thought we should be making this decision today. And we
have a motion on the table.
And let me suggest that there has been a breakdown in the
process here that objections to this particular petition were brought up
at the very last minute resulting in a rescheduling of the
Environmental Advisory Council, that the Environmental Advisory
Council then subsequently on two occasions was unable to gather a
quorum for a meeting, and there is no guarantee that they will get their
quorum in the early week of July.
So since the authority has been delegated to the EAC by the
Board of County Commissioners, I think it is our responsibility to step
in and assume that responsibility whenever there has been a
breakdown in the process.
So with that, if you agree with that, then I will call the question.
All in favor, please signify by signify 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: Okay. It passes 4-1, with Commissioner
Halas dissenting.
Page 204
June 28, 2005
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you all very much, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coyle, could I just
mention two fast things? On 8D, I gave the wrong--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- ex parte, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Disclosure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had said that I had phone calls.
Actually I had e-mails.IsaidImetwiththepetitioner.Ididn.t. I got
my two folders mixed up, so I'd like to retract that and say I just got
e-mails on number 8D, which was the Falling Waters and Home
Depot, or whatever it was, place.
And the second thing I'd like to say is we talked about the EOC
(sic) and the composition of it. I think as long as you're going to be
checking into that, Mr. Mudd, would you please also check to see if
maybe they ought to be meeting more frequently. That might help the
process some. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You said the EOC, didn't you?
MR. MUDD: EAC.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: EAC?
MR. MUDD: She meant EAC.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: EAC.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, did I said EOC?
MR. MUDD: Geez, oh, man. I'm so sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could we get a consensus of the
Commissioners about whether we should appoint alternates to the
EAC just so that we don't have this problem in the future?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, good idea. I like that idea.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It should be the Board of
Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It should be the Board of
Commissioners.
Page 205
June 28, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it sure was today, wasn't it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. I mean, you know, we're
blessed to have public involvement, but we have so many that I just
have a concern we're not going to get the proper number of alternates
to make it happen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we ought to at least try.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you know, sincerely, we
could do it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, why don't we ask the staff to
explore alternatives about how we solve this problem to include
alternates and any other recommendations the staff might have that
would potentially solve this problem, because this really is an
intolerable situation, no matter how it came about.
We just -- we need to have the business of government flowing
along smoothly and not have these kinds of bottlenecks.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much
Item #10M
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARBOR VIEW APARTMENTS'
AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DENSITY BONUS AND IMPOSING COVENANTS AND
RESTRICTIONS ON THE REAL PROPERTY - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item -- it's 10M,
which used to be 16A2, and let me turn to that real quick.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Arbor View Apartments.
MR. MUDD: 16A2 is a recommendation to approve an
Page 206
'____..0..._._____
".-----.....
June 28, 2005
amendment to the Arbor View Apartments agreement authorizing an
affordable housing density bonus and imposing covenants and
restrictions on the real property.
And Mr. Weigel mentioned that Mr. Cormac Giblin needed to
read in -- a paragraph into the record, and I will read that paragraph.
And it basically says, 16A2, paragraph 14 in the original agreement,
the word rental should be struck through.
It should read: Paragraph 14, termination, each affordable
housing unit shall be restricted to remain and be maintained as the
type of affordable housing unit designated in accordable (sic) with this
agreement for at least 15 years from the date of issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for such unit. And that's the only paragraph
that needed to be added. It used to have the rental in it, and it's been
struck.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we need to vote on anything, or is it
-- you just need that --
MR. MUDD: No, sir. You need to vote on this item because
you pulled it to the regular agenda.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion for approval by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Halas.
Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one question. Are we going to
be limiting this to owner-occupied, or will investors be able to buy
these up, and then it won't go to the people who need them in the first
place?
MR. GIBLIN: For the record, Cormac Giblin, your Housing and
Grants Manager. It is limited to owner-occupied units only.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: And I'd like to note that Commissioner Halas is
responsible for making sure that this was corrected for the record.
Page 207
June 28, 2005
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good work. Where do we go from here?
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, did you vote on it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, you didn't.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I did.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, do you have --
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: It passes --
MS. FILSON: Four-zero.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Four-zero.
Item #ION
AWARD BID #05-3827 "TEMPORARY LABORERS" TO
TANDEM STAFFING, ABLE BODY LABOR AND PACESETTER
PERSONNEL SERVICES FOR COLLIER COUNTY WORK
PROJECTS - APPROVED W/STIPULATIONS
MR. MUDD: The next item is ION, and that used to be 16EI,
and that was brought forward at Commissioner Fiala's request. And
16EI states, it's a recommendation to award Bid Number 05-3827,
which is temporary laborers to Tandem Staffing, Able Body Labor,
and Pacesetter Personnel Services for Collier County work projects.
And Ms. Len Price, the Administrator for Administrative
Services, will present.
Page 208
June 28, 2005
MS. PRICE: Len Price, Administrative Services Administrator,
for the record. Commissioner, how can we answer your questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, my question is the same as it
was last year. This place doesn't seem to keep their people off of the
neighboring properties, and there's some destruction and vandalism
going on, as well as some other things that I prefer not to say on the
record but I told you behind the scenes.
I just wanted to make sure we're not hiring somebody that then
allows this to take place to the neighbors in the community. And it's
right across the street from us right here.
MR. HAUER: My name is Mike Hauer. I'm the Purchasing
Acquisition Manager. The award was based on multiple vendors, with
Tandem getting first call. The other firms would not receive any work
unless Tandem could not supply.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But with the others, I would want to
make sure that maybe you just take a little bit of survey there first, and
I'll send you to a couple places who have registered complaints with
me, if you'd like to hear from them, because if this company is not
maintaining a clean presence right there across the street from us and
we hire them, that's saying that we condone that type of business
procedure, and I do not.
MR. HAUER: Well, we did check with codes. There are no open
cases against them. They had one where there was a complaint
regarding the rest room facilities, and that was found to be unfounded.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. You and I will talk more,
please. I do not want to approve this particular company unless I am
assured that they're protecting the neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you like to continue that,
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do I need to continue it? I think
you can just go ahead just as long as I can feed you some names, and
I'd like you to go out and interview these people and see what you can
Page 209
June 28, 2005
do about cleaning up that problem. Who knows? Maybe you'll be able
to protect the neighborhood just by your visits to those people.
MS. PRICE: And we will verify the references before we hire
that particular firm.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, Len. I appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could I make a suggestion that might
help, Commissioner Fiala? Can we include something in the contract
that obligates them to do certain things, and if they fail to do that, then
their contract is terminated?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Based on these three firms, the way it's
set up, if they need temporary labor in order to do something, they'll
go to one or the other, and sometimes you'll get, you know, somebody
at the other end that says, we don't have that temporary labor that you
need, so they'll go to the other firm.
So you have three firms that you can go to. There's one firm that
Commissioner Fiala was talking about. We can hold off on issuing
work to that firm until they meet some stipulations that basically talk
about maintaining the cleanliness of the neighborhood and worrying
about public defecation and things like that that we're getting to.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. That would be helpful.
In that case would you want to recommend approval under those
circumstances?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to approve with the
stipulations added to that contract.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve with
appropriate stipulations by Commissioner Fiala, second by
Commissioner Halas.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 210
--."..-.,---.--
June 28, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great meeting. Now we have -
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to public comment
on general topics.
Ms. Filson?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have two speakers.
MS. FILSON: Kenneth Thompson? I believe Mr. Thompson
left. The next --
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I was going to say, I apologize to Mr.
Thompson because when he submitted his speaker slip, I said to him
that he probably would not be heard today by the length of the
meeting. He'll be coming back tomorrow. I apologize for that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're not going to have a meeting
tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But, we had a very --
MR. WEIGEL: I realize that.
MS. FILSON: We can reconvene for five minutes tomorrow.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I had received a note from Mr.
Thompson yesterday about the particular complaint that he has for his
neighbor across the way, and it seems that his neighbor has now taken
covers off of lights that surrounded the house, and he's made them
more into spotlights. It's very annoying in the evening, and we'll try to
Page 211
June 28, 2005
get that resolved, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: And your final public comment speaker is Chuck
Mohlke.
MR. MOHLKE: For the record, my name is Chuck Mohlke, and
I appear here on a subject discussed previously with you, Mr.
Chairman, and with the Deputy County Manager, Leo Ochs, and with
the Assistant County Attorney , Jeff Castro (sic).
The matter concerns the observance of a tradition established by
the Board of County Commissioners in 1985, done again in 1995, to
adjust their county commission boundaries to reflect population gains.
I have with me, should Commissioners express an interest in it,
Resolution 95-290 that reflects what happened in 1995, to make very
modest adjustments in the district boundaries during this mid-decade
period in which there is an opportunity consistent with the Florida
Constitution, as you will see identified in the Resolution adopted on
April 18th, 1995, and with the provisions of chapter 124, Florida
Statutes.
My only request today is -- and I will be pleased if you direct me
to, Mr. Chairman, to provide to each member of the Commission as I
leave the podium with copies of that previous Resolution that will
define easily what this issue is.
And my only hope is that the Commission, through you, Mr.
Chairman, informally may direct the County Manager's office and the
County Attorney's office to evaluate this request and report to the
Commission at its next meeting for you to determine whether or not
you want to proceed with this matter.
I would conclude my remarks this way: Collier County is a
covered jurisdiction under the voting rights act as amended in 1977.
And in order to protect the interests of protected parties under the act,
Hispanic Americans and African Americans, as well as other members
of the minority community, there is a provision in the pre-clearance
Page 212
,-_..~.
June 28, 2005
component of the voting rights act that these matters be submitted to
justice in a routine manner that was observed by this Commission in
the fall of 200 1.
And my hope is that adjustments can be made in the populations
so that, to be rather specific about it, Mr. Chairman, that a vote for the
incumbent commissioner in district four would be the equivalent of
eight-tenths of a vote for the incumbent in district two because of the
disproportionality in populations and the substantial differences in
registered voters.
I ask your consent, Mr. Chairman, to distribute this material, if
you would like.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Chuck.
MR. MOHLKE: And I'll hope that at a time chosen by you and
the Commission and County Attorney Manager's and County
Attorney's office, that you could proceed with this further. The
County Attorney has a copy of what I'll distribute to you, and I thank
you for the opportunity to make these remarks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Thank's, Chuck. Did you have anything more, Chuck?
MR. MOHLKE: Commissioner, I think, given the hour and the
circumstances, I think all I would request is, that as they have always
done so professionally, the County Manager's office and the County
Attorney advise you regarding these matters and that you be prepared
to discuss it at a later time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
MR. MOHLKE: Thank you very much for this opportunity.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, I do have something,
but I don't have any questions. Thank you.
Page 213
June 28, 2005
The -- thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think he's finished with that issue.
MR. MOHLKE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is such an important issue,
to try to address it at public comments, I think, is an injustice. If
somebody would petition the Board of Commissioners with an
advertised agenda, or if somebody -- one of the Commissioners would
like to put it on the agenda, I think that would be a more appropriate
place.
You'd be surprised when we did the redistricting just four years
ago, five years ago, four years ago, what a change of -- of people who
thought that they were in a certain district, were changed, and I hope
that we don't rush to do that again.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay,
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think that's what we're being
asked to do, schedule this for a public hearing and -- so the County
Manager and the County Attorney will review the information and
make recommendations to us as to when we should hear this, right?
MR. WEIGEL: You bet.
MR. MUDD: Sir, do you want the Supervisor of Elections to be
part of this?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, absolutely, you bet, you bet. Thank
you very much.
Now, anything else?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can we take a break?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, we will, in just a minute.
MR. MUDD: Sir, your discussion on the FEMA alternatives on
item 12A was satisfied when, I believe, you heard 12G (sic); is that
correct, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: That is correct.
Page 214
June 28, 2005
Item #15
STAFF AND GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. MUDD: Okay. Commissioner, that would bring us to staff
and commission, general communications.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And certainly, staff doesn't have
anything to say, do they?
MR. MUDD: Sir, we still have one item to finish, but it's got a
five p.m. time-certain.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, that's right. Yes, I know. But do
you have anything to say at this point in time?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, I do, and I won't say it again later, so I'll
get it done one time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good, good.
MR. MUDD: As you read in the paper today, the TDC basically
voted for a fourth-penny tourist tax item. I just want to let staff -- the
commissioners know that I'll have staff work on that over the next
month so that on the 26th of July, at that meeting, that particular item
will be on the agenda.
And the next item is -- and I think Commissioner Henning
alluded to it -- I sent each Commissioner a letter that I received from
Mr. Chuck Carrington, because Chuck is our rep., and I sent it to you
yesterday, and I had a little note on it, it said, Commissioners, another
annexation attempt, very respectively, Jim Mudd.
We received a survey from the Collier Park of Commerce
Owners' Association. This is basically North and South Horseshoe
Drive, in that commerce area right there, and it basically wanted to
know if we would be in favor of annexing to the City of Naples.
And we have properties in that commerce park. And I was just --
I don't mean to put you on the spot, but sooner or later we need to
answer this. Now, if you don't want to say yes and you don't want to
Page 215
._."--'~
June 28, 2005
say no, no answer is a no vote according to the -- according to the
rules that are out there.
So I just let you know that I received this particular item. And
first of all, I didn't know it was out there, and so I took a look at it. I'm
not sure all the data connected to it is correct. But I wanted to know
since they're taking a survey, what's the Board's desire as far as -- as
far as the voice on this particular survey.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I say annex. We might get a
permit faster.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, that's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want to know who's -- who
initiates these conversations.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, the city supposedly is restricted
from initiating talks of annexation by their charter. And I don't know,
reading this it says that the Collier Park of Commerce Owners'
Association has been discussing with the City of Naples the possibility
of annexing.
It looks to me like this is something that was initiated by the
owners' association, but I have no -- no absolute knowledge of that.
This is the first I've heard of it.
MR. MUDD: I have no idea. I just received this survey, and I
provided each Commissioner a copy of it yesterday.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We've never seen such a march on
annexation before, have we?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But nobody has talked with me about it,
so I had no knowledge of this at all. But if people are looking for
faster and more efficient permit processes, that's exactly what's going
to happen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You are going to have a
representative at this meeting on July 12th, being that we're property
owners there; is that correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. And we can come back and give you
Page 216
"~-~. "'--"-'-""----"-'---"-'
June 28, 2005
an idea of what transpires at that particular meeting, and I'll let you
know on the 26th of July. And from there we can -- I can bring this
subject back up again and figure out what we want to do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I'm sorry, I hit my button
agaIn.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can't talk twice.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. My concern is, as the city
proceeds through this annexation, I would hope that they also realize
that they also should take responsibility of all the utilities so that that
becomes -- under one jurisdiction and not into a separate item where
we start pointing fingers at one another. So I think that's something
that I think needs to be addressed also.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I don't understand why the city is
evening thinking about -- or would even consider annexing
commercial property. But I -- once again, I don't know --
MR. MUDD: There's a rule out there that says you can't have
enclaves, depending on where they'd like to go next. You can't leave
it behind. And it sits right now -- it's an enclave because you've got
the airport and you've got another piece above it, so it does have a
little bit of a problem with it, so maybe they're trying to even out
things, I don't know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They might not even be really interested
in doing that, but who knows. I guess you'll find out at this meeting,
huh?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
Any other questions concerning this issue?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: I'm done, sir. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Page 217
June 28, 2005
County attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Wouldn't think of it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good, good.
All right. Commissioner Halas, you go first on this one. You
don't have anything more -- you couldn't possibly have anything more
to say.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, because I'd be in direct
competition with you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Where's the stop watch? I want to time
him next time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We needed to time you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to publish his time.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm known as the silent one.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't have anything to say.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think we ought to take a fast break
so we can --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then stop talking and we'll break.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- freshen up.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One minute. I'll take her 30
seconds.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Go ahead, Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We should send a letter of thank
you to the Productivity Committee for their assistance in the budget
process, recommendations for constitutional officers.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll take that on and I'll --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, that's right. You're the liaison.
That would be a good idea.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll take care of that.
Page 218
June 28, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But the -- I'm concerned about
our advisory boards going out of the realm in the spirit of their charge.
And we have one today that I'm sure we all received from the
Hispanic Advisory Board on the report on the school board, on their
findings of school board. I just think we need to live up to the spirit of
the ordinance, and I believe this one is outside the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I agree with you 100 percent. I
think we need to make a -- make a decision. You know, if they want
to take on issues that do not involve advising the Board of County
Commissioners, then what we should do is separate them from the
Board of County Commissioners and they can have their own
organization and they can lobby for whatever it is they want to do, but
not as part of a Board of County Commissioners advisory board,
because I don't see them functioning in that capacity recently.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the concern that I have,
this is a -- this is going to go to the school board, and I think it's
important that we say that we did not sanction this study --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- because we want a good
working relationship with our other elected officials.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. That is way beyond our
responsibility, and it does expose us to considerable criticism for
interference into other governmental agencies, and I think it's
dangerous, and I agree with you. I don't think we should tolerate it
any longer, and this isn't the first time that it's happened.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's all I have.
MR. MUDD: Sir, would you like me to draft a letter to the
Hispanic Advisory Board and let them know along -- and courtesy
copy the school board, or do you want me to send it to the school
board and courtesy copy to HAB that basically says that it was an
unsanctioned study by -- you know, and the board had nothing to say
about that particular issue before it was issued?
Page 219
June 28, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think it's a good idea, and I would
support that if the other commissioners would, but 1'd go further than
that. 1'd send a letter to the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board, and I
would tell them that they have -- they have a choice, they can separate
from Collier County government and have their own organization to
lobby for whatever they want to lobby for, and they're perfectly --
they have every right to do that if they wish to, but they cannot do it
under the guise of an advisory board to the County Commissioners.
That's what an advisory board does, it advises the county
commissioners about action to be taken. It doesn't independently take
action without approval by the Board of County Commissioners.
Am I correct in that, David?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Absolutely.
MR. WEIGEL: That's fine, and I appreciate that clarification. I
look forward to working with Jim in that regard.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that okay with all the other
commissioners? Do we have three nods?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Then we are breaking until
five o'clock.
(A recess was taken.)
Item #10C
APPROVAL MULTIPLE ROAD CORRIDOR ALIGNMENT
CONCEPTS IN THE NORTH BELLE MEADE AREA FOR LONG
RANGE PLANNING PURPOSES, AND ALSO APPROVE
MULTIPLE CORRIDORS TO BE USED IN THE SHORT TERM
AS TRUCK HAUL ROUTES - MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATIONS WITH MODIFICATION OF #4 TO
INCLUDE CONNECTION OF WILSON BL YD. EXTENSION
SOUTH TO I-75 (1 ST CHOICE) AND CONNECTION TO
Page 220
June 28, 2005
EVERGLADES BLVD. (2ND CHOICE) - APPROVED -
RESOLUTION 2005-262 (PRESENTED TO CLERK'S OFFICE
STATING DIRECTION)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
Commissioner, this brings us to our last Agenda Item, and it is
Item 1 DC. This item to be heard at five p.m., and will be the last item
heard today, and it's the last item on the agenda. You finished
everything except for this one.
A recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
approve multiple road corridor alignment concepts in the North Belle
Meade area for long-range planning purposes and also approve
multiple corridors to be used in the short-term as truck haul routes,
and Mr. Norman Feder, your Administrator for Transportation
Services, will present.
MR. FEDER: Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me just make a quick announcement,
Norman.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to speak, you must fill out a
speaker's slip and turn it in to Ms. Filson here at this desk. Once we
begin the hearing, we do not accept additional speaker slips, okay. So
right now we have 24.
MS. FILSON: Twenty-five now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Twenty-five now. If anyone here hasn't
registered, you've got 30 seconds.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, just start up towards the
podium up here, and we'll make sure you're in that line if you would
like to speak.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So I assume everybody who
wants to speak has registered, and we will start the hearing.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, for the record,
Page 221
-_.,--~
June 28, 2005
Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator.
About three years ago, as part of your approval of the North
Belle Meade overlay in responding to the governor's issues, there was
a requirement placed on property owners looking at mining in the
North Belle Meade area to conduct a study to look at what options
there were for possible public routes in the area and potentially a haul
route.
That was three years ago, that once upon acceptance of the North
Belle Meade study and the other portions of our Comprehensive Plan,
that they would have two years to conduct the study. This does
represent after a year of the approval process, the two years, and the
study is being brought to you. And very shortly I'll have the
consultants, which are WilsonMiller and Hole Montes, and Jeff Perry
for the consultants will be making a presentation of the results of their
study.
Also I believe that Bruce Anderson, representing basically the
property owners, East Naples Land, as well as Florida Rock Industries
will be presenting, and then staff will give you some details on what
I'm just going to cover very basically.
What I do want to do is make sure that for the many people that
are here this evening, that they understand that our recommendation is
not to establish any specific route, to ask the Board to take action on
any specific route today.
The studies that have been done, I think, have been helpful in
identifying issues, starting the dialogue with the community, and with
the environmental groups, and we've got a number of issues in both
areas.
But what we're facing out in the Estates, as you well know, is
very, very rapid growth. Sixteen hundred new homes just last year.
And what we're looking at is, unlike the six-by-six grid we have in the
urbanized area, we'll probably have different approaches out there in
the Estates, but we'll still have some major corridor needs in the
Page 222
June 28, 2005
Estates particularly on an east/west.
Right now what we have is Immokalee Road, which we're in the
process of six-laning as we speak. We have Golden Gate Boulevard,
which is four lanes, and we have programmed in a couple years to
extend that four-laning on out to Everglades. We have Vanderbilt
Beach Road, which basically stops just to the east of 951 today, in the
process, and with monies programmed to try and go and extend that
on out to the east.
But that will leave us with only three major east/west routes
servicing particularly the northern part of the Estates.
In the area of North Belle Meade, we have very, very little in the
way of access as we continue to grow in that area, and as we face the
prospects of a new rural village in that area.
So we have White Boulevard, other connections. We have a
fairly good grid, which we look to take advantage of in the Estates, but
most of it's cut offby canals.
So we're going to have to look at our program, and we're working
very hard on an east of951 study. So rather than taking the standard
approach on study and recommendations here, we believe, as I said,
the dialogue has been started.
We're not going to ask you to look at any of the alignments or
approve any of them as long-term items, rather we want your
recommendation that we take the results of this study as input, along
with a lot more communication and coordination with the community,
with the environmental groups, to try and evaluate what we look at in
the plan.
I say that both because I believe that dialogue needs to continue,
and it hasn't been completed yet, as well, our evaluation of how we're
going to approach everything in the Estates, and then also I need to
note that we don't have the funding.
The other commitments I mentioned to you on Immokalee Road
and Oil Well, on Vanderbilt Beach Road and on Golden Gate
Page 223
June 28, 2005
Boulevard basically are what are consuming our funding in our
five-year work program.
So even if we were to come to some alignments, we're talking in
the 2015 to 2020 time frame in any event. So we've got the time to
continue to study and to do it right, get the community involved, so I
think the study has been very successful in that manner.
What we probably will concentrate on after you get the
presentation on the broader study, is the issues of a haul route.
Because as you remember three years ago when the issue was set up
for the study to be done by the landowners, that if, in fact, we could
not come to a cost-sharing public roadway at this time, that they could
then develop a haul route.
So most of the study's been on whether or not a public alternative
exists, issues of the haul route, how it would go, how many trucks.
Those issues are things that we feel still need to be fleshed out further.
And probably the bulk, at least from the staffs recommendation, the
consideration by this Board, may be for decisions even further down
the road.
With that said, let me turn it over to the consultant for the
landowners. In this case it will be Jeff Perry of Wilson Miller review
what they did in the study as was required by this Board three years
ago.
MR. PERRY: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Board
members. For the record, my name is Jeff Perry, the Transportation
Planner with the firm ofWilsonMiller.
I had the pleasure of working on this study in consultation with
Hole Montes, Incorporated, and Southern Biomes, the group that did
some of our environmental research.
We're here -- and we have a number of staff members here to
answer any specific questions that come up. I would like to walk you
through a summary of the report. The report, as you know, was
provided to you. It is one of the most comprehensive reports that I've
Page 224
-'._._-'-
June 28, 2005
had the pleasure of working on.
It includes, in the bulk of it, all of the written comments we
received. If you had a chance to read any of that, you'll know that
written comments that we all -- that we asked for in the two public
workshops that we held, was extensive.
I'm going to step through a very brief PowerPoint presentation
for you to tell you a little bit about the study, the recommendations
that we made, why we made them, and then answer any questions that
you might have.
The study, although funded by a private landowner, was done in
the cooperation -- with the cooperation of the county transportation
staff. We followed all of the public involvement processes in order to
make it an open study available to the public. All of the
documentation has been available on the county's web page.
We have had two separate public meetings, which I'll deal with in
a little more detail. But we followed a normal analysis process in
order to try to evaluate a variety of different options.
We started with kick-off meetings in the spring of 2004 with
Golden Gate Civic Association, the Naples Alligator Alley Civic
Association, and the Civic Advisory Group. We met with the
transportation staff, and we developed eight initial alternatives.
The whole process is basically trying to identify public roadway
alternatives. We have recognized, as your staff has, that the
transportation needs are growing in the Golden Gate Estates area, and
with Belle Meade in the rural fringe amendments exacerbated, that
particular need to be looking at other alternatives that would provide
long-term transportation solutions for the area.
The solutions are intended to provide service for both residential
and non-residential development. The potential corridors we looked
at developed with your staff originally sort of a -- an array of different
alternatives, north, south, east, west alternatives.
We took the guidance from the Growth Management Plan that
Page 225
June 28, 2005
talked about an extension of Wilson Boulevard, and then east/west
connectors that might link up to Collier Boulevard.
And you can see on the western side of the screen there is, of
course, Collier Boulevard, on the eastern side is Wilson Boulevard,
I -75 along the south, Golden Gate Boulevard along the north.
Initially this was the study boundary, the study area that we were
looking at. We were concentrating on roadway connections within
that particular area.
The yellow roads are basically those roads that exist in some
form or fashion today, either improved roads or semi-improved roads.
The red dotted lines were the additional extensions or corridors that
we developed that might -- we wanted to test to be able to see how
they would work.
As I said, we came up with eight alternatives. They are listed
and covered in detail in your report, so I'm not going to go over all of
them, but I wanted to identify for you how we went about looking at
each individual alternative and comparing it against the others.
All of these exhibits I'm showing to you have been made
available to the public, were presented at the public workshops.
This is an example of alternate (sic) eight. As you can see, the
yellow roads indicate the existing roadway network. The red roads in
this particular alternative was an eastward extension of what would be
16th Avenue, southern extension of Wilson Boulevard and Blackburn
or Landfill Road along the south.
We analyzed each individual alternative, one of -- each of the
eight with our computer models, with the county's MPO computer
models, to try to evaluate how the different alternatives reacted to the
traffic demands, looking out into the year 2025, keeping in mind that
the rural fringe amendments changed the landscape of the future of the
Belle Meade -- North Belle Meade area. We know that Golden Gate
Estates is growing rapidly.
Travel demand is increasing to the point where new roads have to
Page 226
'--"~-
June 28, 2005
be evaluated, and the computer models give us an opportunity to do
that.
This, as you can see, is the traffic and the level of service on
Golden Gate Boulevard southwards towards Blackburn Road. We
also examined those.
We also looked at advantages and disadvantages, how one
particular alternative ranked or rated against the other. Where was the
benefit? Some roadway improvements, for instance, improved
Golden Gate Boulevard by some particular margin. Some made a
benefit to White Boulevard, perhaps, reducing the traffic on White
Boulevard. Others increased traffic, we considered a disadvantage,
increasing traffic on a particular roadway. All of these things are --
were evaluated for each of the eight different alternatives.
On September 29th of this -- of 2004, we took our results of the
eight alternatives, analysis, to a public workshop. We provided survey
sheets to the participants, asked them to identify which alternatives
they liked or didn't like. We provided for an after the meeting public
comment period to allow anybody who went away, wanted to send in
comments.
Looked at the survey results, and clearly there was no winner. A
lot of people liked all of the improvements that were suggested, others
had favorites, but there was no clear winner as far as one particular
alternative or the other. In fact, we got a lot of good ideas at the first
public workshop, which took us to trying to sort down or distill down
all of the comments and the alternatives into one or two that we could
take into the next level of analysis.
We, in fact, developed two new alternatives following that
meeting, extensions of 16th Avenue all the way eastward to tie into
Everglades Boulevard.
You'll recall I mentioned that we initially stopped at Wilson
Boulevard as sort of the eastern boundary of the study area. But it was
brought up at our meeting that an extension eastward all the way to
Page 227
June 28, 2005
Everglades Boulevard might be of some benefit or value.
We also looked at a potential interchange at I - 75 and Everglades
Boulevard with that particular alternative. We also formulated a
strategy of looking at two different time frames. What could be done
within the next 10 years and what would be long-range after 10 years
as far as improvements go.
The preferred corridor that we focused on, this set of
improvements, which is Exhibit 15 in your report, identified the
eastward extension of 16th Avenue all the way out to Everglades
Boulevard, the westward extension of 16th all the way to tie into
Collier Boulevard at Green, the southern extension of Wilson
Boulevard and Blackburn, Kean Avenue extension here and some
improvements to some of the local roads in this particular area, plus an
improvement along 16th -- the existing 16th Avenue, which is
presently a two-lane local road.
We also developed planning level cost estimates in order to
compare a lot of the different alternatives. Your right-of-way staff
helped identify the right-of-way requirements that would be
necessary .
We prepared a preliminary environmental impact assessment, we
also mapped all of the corridors and provided graphics that showed
where the corridor would impact individual parcels so when people
came to a workshop, they would actually be able to see where the
corridor was in relationship to their home and their parcels.
At the second public workshop, we found that 70 percent of those
people attending and commenting opposed the 16th Avenue extension.
Twenty percent were in favor of it. Sixty percent of those favored the
Wilson Boulevard extension to either I-75 or to an eastward extension
of Blackburn/Landfill Road, while 10 percent opposed that.
Thirty percent opposed a new bridge on 23rd Street; 10 percent
were in favor of that. And not surprisingly, multiple improvements
were thought to be the best solution. Do as many of the improvements
Page 228
June 28, 2005
as you could and you'd minimize the impact on one particular area or
another.
Following the second public workshop, we expanded our strategy
a little bit, developed what we called the immediate action plan, what
could be done in the very near term, then what could be done within
the next 10 years, and then what could be done beyond that.
Immediate action plan. We're focussing on the area in the North
Belle Meade extending Kean Avenue to the western edge of section
21, and then additional public road upgrades on one or more of the
existing or potential corridors extending southward from Kean Avenue
down to Landfill.
Other near-term improvements. The next 10 years involved
extending 16th Avenue -- extending 16th Avenue westward to Collier
Boulevard with new bridges, a new bridge on 23rd Street, and
realigning 23rd and Garland right here in the southern portion of that
particular screen.
The long-range of improvements beyond 2015 involved
extending 16th Avenue eastward to tie into 18th Avenue Southeast
and, therefore, to Everglades Boulevard, extension across a bridge -- a
new bridge across the canal at Wilson, extending Wilson southward to
the Blackburn Road extension, and then the Kean Avenue extension
through the section 21 area, tying into Wilson Boulevard, and a new
interchange at I - 7 5.
That's the results of the study. Our effort has been to try to bring
forward a set of proposals that would be used primarily for public
purposes.
Mr. Anderson would like to make some comments concerning
some of the short-term haul road options that these roads might also be
used for. And with that, I turn it over to Bruce.
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. My name is Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel and
Andress law firm. I represent East Naples Land Company, which you
Page 229
---^
June 28, 2005
may recall over the years has helped the county successfully defend
two different challenges to the Growth Management Plan, one was a
challenge brought by environmental interests and another was a
challenge brought by North Belle Meade landowners.
I also represent Florida Rock Industries, which recently acquired
1,000 acres of receiving lands and 400 acres of sending lands, NRP A
sending lands from East Naples Land Company.
Florida Rock Industries is the one who is requesting the haul
route connection for its mining activities, not East Naples Land
Company.
My clients have released a joint position statement trying to make
clear that they are not advocates for all of the recommendations
contained in the report.
Specifically with regard to potential future corridor alignments, I
just want to briefly summarize this for the benefit of folks in the
audience who may not have seen it or heard it, neither Florida Rock
nor East Naples Land Company advocates an extension of 16th
Avenue either west or east or use of White Boulevard or the bridging
of Wilson Boulevard south as a primary truck haul route.
Florida Rock and East Naples Land Company do advocate the
securing of adequate right-of-way and road improvements along Kean
Avenue for two miles from the southwest corner of section 21, west to
the north end of existing Garland Road to be used as a primary truck
haul route.
Florida Rock and East Naples Land Company do advocate the
securing of adequate right-of-way and improvements along either
Garland Road, Smith Road, Inez Road, or equivalent access to
Landfill Road as a primary truck haul route.
An extension of 16th Avenue east as a major east/west corridor
along the north section line of 21, section 21, is prohibitive due to the
crossing of existing mining permits and the limited width of land
available. That are my client's positions on the various alternatives
Page 230
June 28, 2005
that were set forth in the report.
One of the results of the county's successful defense of past
challenges to its Growth Management Plan is the North Belle Meade
overlay in the Growth Management Plan. The North Belle Meade
overlay states that it encourages earth mining uses to remain and
expand on receiving lands because they are, quote, reported to contain
FDOT grade rock for road construction, end of quote.
Two weeks ago you received a staff report on the present lack of
FDOT grade rock available from within Collier County, rock that now
has to be imported from Lee County without any way for Collier
County to collect any money from them for road maintenance.
The staff report stated, and I quote, by keeping such mining in
the county, construction costs, gas taxes, and road maintenance fees
will remain consistent with surrounding counties and it will lessen the
cost of road construction, road maintenance, and building construction
in Collier County, unquote.
Now, if providing a mining haul route access connection allows
FDOT grade rock to be mined in Collier County, which in turn lowers
the county's road building and maintenance costs, then it can certainly
be said that a haul route connection is in the overall public interest.
The North Belle Meade overlay also calls for an evaluation and
assessment to be done on whether there was an alignment for a new
public road connection that could also serve as a mining truck route
and that most folks could agree on.
Well, the county didn't have any money budgeted for a study, so
my client, East Naples Land Company, stepped up to the plate to pay
for the study, with the county providing the oversight, coordinating
public meetings, and providing technical assistance.
It's clear from the public sentiment that there is no agreement on
a new public road alignment that could also be used for mining trucks,
and besides, the county doesn't have any money anyway.
My clients recognize that in the future, circumstances may
Page 231
June 28, 2005
change, and they are willing to continue to work with the county
should either party's needs or abilities change regarding a private haul
roads serving as a future route for a public road.
On behalf of my clients, I respectfully request two things:
Number one, authorize a mining haul road connection to Landfill
Road through to Collier Boulevard at a location to be approved by the
transportation division and to be subj ect to the standard transportation
requirements, as other mining operations in Collier County.
Secondly, Florida Rock requests that the County Commission
cooperate -- cooperation and authorization in the form of a resolution
to the Florida Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department
of Transportation advocating an entrance onto I - 7 5 with an
acceleration lane for loaded road material trucks traveling west only
by issuing a special temporary use access permit to use that as a haul
route to the west.
Haul trucks use Collier Boulevard today and they're going to
continue to do so no matter what happens tonight. The real question is
whether these haul trucks come from Lee County or whether these
haul trucks come from Collier County. Both cases impact our
roadways. But for haul trucks coming from a Collier County mine,
they're paying a fee for road maintenance. But for the haul trucks
coming from Lee County, it's a free ride on Collier Boulevard.
As staff told you two weeks ago, it will be cheaper to buy and
haul the rock from within our own county rather than relying on
imports from Lee County. I ask you to decide in favor of the
taxpayers on this one by approving Florida Rock's access connection
to Landfill Road.
I'd like to ask the manager to distribute specifically what it is I
am asking you to approve so that there's no confusion about it.
And I or anybody else on our team would be happy to try to
answer any questions. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Questions? Okay. Go ahead, Norm.
Page 232
June 28, 2005
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, what I'd like to do is follow up, as
-- I think you've gotten a quick overview, and I know we have a lot of
people who have come out to get a chance to talk to you this evening,
and I want to give them that chance.
As you've heard, we've got two major issues we're dealing here.
The first is, is there a public roadway or grid network coming out of
this study that we can start moving on, put in our plan, and start
putting funding to?
I think what you heard already by both the consultant -- and by
the way, I want to commend them for a very good study. They did a
very thorough study, a good one. They did start a good dialogue.
But I think out of that what was identified is the need in the area,
the fact that we're going to have to have multiple solutions, but that we
haven't defined all of those yet.
So our recommendation to you specifically in here, and it
remains, is that you direct us on the broader issues to incorporate this
study into and continue the dialogue both with the community and
with the environmental groups to define what it is we're going to do in
the North Belle Meade and what network we're going to have with the
future as part of our long-range transportation plan that's underway
now to be completed towards the end of the year, and as part of our
east of 951 studies that we've worked with you on some of our
strategic planning.
To the issue of a haul route, we agree that there is no defined
public and haul route at this time, and so we are noting to you that if
the mining operation wants to establish a haul route connection, that is
for them to proceed on without necessarily any county involvement,
other than the fact, as was provided -- and we don't have any problem
with the request from Florida Rock just presented to you, that they
have to, first of all, get connection to 951 and Landfill at an area we
can concur with and to meet all the requirements that might be placed
on them for such a connection.
Page 233
June 28, 2005
Since we haven't heard exactly how many trucks we're talking
about and what the impacts would be, we'd have to try to make sure
we can address those in the least impactive way possible.
We also note that if they are able to get federal highway and
Florida DOT authorization for temporary access to I - 7 5, which would
probably be predicated on whether or not they're providing the rock
and fill to the I-75 expansion, obviously if they're going to do that, we
would want to see that happen, so we could propose that as well;
however, I'm not sure that we can environmentally do it or that the
desire would be there by Florida Rock.
But our recommendation would be to find away, if that were the
case, to get temporary access to Everglades allowing that temporary
interchange to be the forbearer, hopefully, of our long-term need and
most important need in this area that we know already, a new
interchange at Everglades Boulevard.
So whether it be further to the north from this area across, even
north of 16th and over to Everglades and come down and have a
temporary access onto the interstate at Everglades, we'd almost like to
see that rather than a temporary at Wilson that probably wouldn't lead
to our future needs and probably would go away rather than something
that might help us try to get the interchange at Everglades.
That being said, there are some issues, obviously the access point
at 951. City Gate, I believe they'll probably be here to talk to you, has
expressed concerns about allowing the truck traffic across their area.
As you know, we have a signal today to meet the school's need at
Magnolia and at Utility Drive. That signal is being moved further
north. The new entrance to City Gate and the modifications through
Benderson's property for the school to enter just south of the canal.
Knowing that, obviously that becomes critical because we don't
want trucks doing U-Turns out there. So that's an issue that's
outstanding, just to give some background. But the recommendations
that were noted as short-term, even sections of 16, which we're telling
Page 234
June 28, 2005
you we still need to study a lot further.
Even the eastern -- the western portion is over $45 million by
their planning estimates, so they're not short-term. And as I told you,
those issues we need to continue the debate and the discussion with
the community and with the environmental groups. But we do need to
define something. We need to define our plan for the Estates, and
that's a big part of what this long-range transportation will do.
In the past it's been basically a study west of 951. It needs to be a
county-wide study, and that's what we're after.
So I appreciated your indulgence. We're available for any
questions, either staff or to the applicant or their consultants, and if
you'd like to, to open it up to the public.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me just clarify where you're
at with the -- your recommendations and with the study and Mr.
Anderson.
Presented -- Mr. Anderson presented to provide a haul road to
Landfill Road and also to see if they could get interconnection to I - 7 5.
I heard your recommendations, if we're going to do that, go up to
Glades Boulevard for that interconnection and--
MR. FEDER: For both reasons, both for the potential on the
interchange and because a lot of that rock, if it's going to be used for
transportation proj ects in the county, our proj ects are moving to the
northeast, which I'd rather see them going up Everglades than on 951,
across Golden Gate or Immokalee to get to the northeast.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So I understand that.
Now, what about the connection to Landfill Road?
MR. FEDER: The connection to Landfill is something that we
expressed concern, and I did personally three years ago when the first
study came out. I'm awfully close to very, very problematic
interchange at I-75, Davis, 951.
But yet, I think what came out of this study is we don't have
Page 235
June 28, 2005
another viable option that could be pursued quickly. And so if they
have to develop a haul route, the only caveat I have in saying I concur
with it -- and I think it was in his provision -- and that is that we get to
see the particulars and any mitigation and needs are addressed if, in
fact, we're going to have them come on Landfill and go to 951 at that
point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But you're also saying, keep the
process open for the final route?
MR. FEDER: We need to keep the process open to the grid
pattern for overall transportation network and Belle Meade. That's
why I said they've got two issues.
The first one is really issues that we're not ready to fund and we
don't have defined at this point. They're out there in 2015 to 2020 in
available funding, and they need further dialogue both with the
community environmental groups -- that is the other grid pattern,
whether it be 13th, Wilson, or other alternatives,
The issue of a haul route though is something that we now need
to address. Three years ago the agreement was that if we couldn't find
a funding scenario to a project that we all agreed we could move on,
that they were then able to build a haul route.
We're saying that they can build that haul route, but we need to
see how it connects to our system, and it appears the most likely right
now is a connection to Landfill and 951.
We do have some issues there with the signal and City Gate.
And if there's options, I would like to see something connected over to
Everglades, whether it gets connected to I - 75 or it services the
northeast with an alternate route, given where our major projects will
be in the future, that's our recommendation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. We have a really, really
serious problem here that hasn't been discussed thoroughly, but Norm
just alluded to it, and that is the I - 75 interchange, rather the I - 7 5
Page 236
June 28, 2005
section between 101 and 107 is not going to be widened, not going to
be widened. There's no expansion for -- till the year 2030, from
Golden Gate Parkway. I don't -- maybe that's 105. I don't know what
-- anyway.
From the new Golden Gate interchange down to 101, there's not
going to be an expansion taking place, number one. So I don't know
where these haul trucks are going to go.
Number two, the intersection there at Davis Boulevard and 951,
the state has said it's already failed. That is not going to be widened or
reconfigured also until the year 2030, because they have no money to
do that.
They say it will be $150 million just to reconfigure that
intersection, Davis Boulevard and 951. So I don't know how you
could ever take the trucks out onto Landfill because they're not going
to go anyplace.
Last week, quarter to eight in the morning, I couldn't get off of
Davis Boulevard and onto 951 because the traffic from I - 75 was all
the way back, all the way back to that intersection of Davis Boulevard,
and you couldn't get out. So -- and this is not season, so I don't know
what we're going to do about this, but this is a really serious -- more
serious than I think people realize.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, I think it's important to note a
couple of things, but it doesn't minimize what you just said. The
interchange, I - 7 5, 951, and Davis, the major interchange
improvements are a ways off. We're looking --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 2030.
MR. FEDER: Yeah. We're looking at six-laning in that section
from Davis north to the northern end of the ramps as part of our
project on 951. We're also looking at major development in that area
to assist with that effort, plus the state does have about three, four
years out the improvements to Davis, the six-laning of Davis, but there
are still major issues in that area, and that's why originally three years
Page 237
June 28, 2005
ago we said that we'd like to try and find another route as a haul route
alternative, and why I would like a back door to Everglades.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's why, Norm, I'm
suggesting that maybe the Landfill Road isn't the way, and it has to be
Everglades Boulevard, and I think we should support your efforts
there, because I don't think -- you say you're six-laning, but you also
know that that's going to be failing within six years after you six-lane
anyway.
MR. FEDER: And those that would help on this six-laning are
going to be putting traffic on as well, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So that's -- you know, these trucks
are not going to help that intersection. So I think we should do all we
can to support your efforts with the Everglades Boulevard
interchange.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. First I'd like to
take a moment and welcome our very diverse audience. We have
members of the trucking industry, we have members of the Golden
Gate Estates Civic Association, members of the Wilson Boulevard
contingent, and we have a group very well organized from 16th,
Frangipani is here in numbers. You're all welcome. You're part of
this process. It's a good thing to see you here today.
As you probably are going to learn today, the answers aren't
going to be forthcoming in this one meeting. There's going to be some
directions given to our staff to go back and work on this study and
keep working on it to try to come up with an alternative.
As you just heard, Commissioner Fiala's got very serious
concerns over the part of the area that she represents, and I also share
that representation with her on the other side of the road.
And all these answers have to come forward. And one of the
things we have to make sure is that our checkbook concurrency is
working so well with new PUDs going in -- in fact, quite a few cases
Page 238
June 28, 2005
now it shut them down to the point where they have to make the
repairs themselves to the system in order to be able to go on.
We have to find a way to be able to make it apply to though this
venture that they're looking at for the trucking industry.
I'm going to take just a moment and give you a little history on
how we got to where we are today. Back when we were doing the
rural lands, we were getting down to the eleventh hour, and AP AC
was looking to expand. It was one of the deals they worked out for
the rural lands to work, to be able to put lands into conservation.
They took and they made a deal where they were going to be
able to open up an additional area for mining in consideration for the
fact the land would be placed in conservation.
The problem was that they were going to empty everything out
into Golden Gate Boulevard. That was not acceptable, and I raised
quite a stink about it at the time, threw everything into overdrive, and
they worked to the eleventh hour to come up with something that
would provide another way for these trucks to be able to get in and out
without putting an overburden on Golden Gate Boulevard.
Golden Gate Boulevard was restricted to the historical amount of
traffic that's been on it, and no increase was to be allowed.
Well, that made it necessary for them to come up with another
alternative for getting in and out. Now, the problem with that was is
that I didn't want it to be a give-away where they just build a haul road
and then we found ourselves on the short end of the stick.
One of the things I'm very good at doing is getting concessions
from developers. I do it all the time, everything from bass fishing
lakes to right-of-way to affordable housing money, and it's just one of
those things.
If you want to do something in Collier County, you pay the price;
however, in this case, we're not able to come up with any funds to be
able to make this a public road at this time.
I'm not overly concerned about it being a total public road at this
Page 239
June 28, 2005
point in time because I know what's coming behind it in the next 15,
20 years. And when that demand starts to build up, that road from
Everglades all the way down to Landfill and 951 is going to be a
reality. It's just a matter of time for it to happen.
Now, the problem -- there's many problems along the way that
you haven't heard about, and you will be hearing about in the near
future. Commissioner Fiala just alluded to one of them.
Another one is City Gate. City Gate isn't going to make it easy
for us to come out at any meaningful fashion at that particular
location, and it's going to take some serious negotiations on the
transportation and some help from the Commission to help them find a
way to make this all work.
Presently, the way it's lined up, it's just not going to work, the
way they've got the road curving and everything, and they own the
private section just before you get to where the road would join across
from where the high school road comes out where there's a traffic
light.
The other one is Everglades. We have to be able to meet the
needs of the environmental community on that, and if we do it too
close to Golden Gate Boulevard where this road goes, it's not going to
serve much of a public function in the future. If we get too close to
75, then we have to bear away from it to be able to hit Everglades in a
position so that it won't interfere with the interchange.
There's still an awful lot -- and what I'm trying to impress upon
you is the fact that we've just scratched the surface. This study has
been very useful in the fact that we now have some ideas what to look
at, but we are nowheres there.
And I'm going to take just a minute or two, if I may.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And by the way, Commissioner
Coletta's up for reelection in 2008.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And Commissioner Henning is
also --
Page 240
June 28, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Please continue, please
continue.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- up for election at that point in
time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You'd think it would be this year,
wouldn't you?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One of the things that you're
going to -- that you have already heard several times, and I give the
Golden Gate Master Plan creators credit for it, and I also -- the Golden
Gate Estates Civic Association recognized it early on too, that in order
for this to ever work, it's going to have to be multiple routes that are
going to take place.
We can never, never, never place the burden on anyone
community in and out of there. When this takes place, it's going to
have to be something that is planned out in such a way that no one
community is going to take a hit from it. It's going to have to serve the
greater whole.
And with that, I spoke enough. I see Commissioner Halas' light
is lit, and I'm sure I'll come back later with more, and I'm looking
forward to hearing from the speakers.
Commissioner Coyle is taking time. I can't believe this, you
know, of all things. He's going to time us to see how long we each
speak. Okay, go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I also want to give some
confidence out there to the audience that we're not here tonight to pick
a particular area. But I think we have to, as Commissioners, and with
county staff, look at all of our options.
And I'm sure that when we're addressing options as far as
east/west routes, I know there's about five or six different alternatives
that are presented in this plan, but I don't think that this is anything to
get excited about other than the fact that it's there, and that I think that
Page 241
June 28, 2005
there's other areas of the Golden Gate Estates that we're going to have
to address even before we even start looking at another east/west
corridor in regards to addressing the growth issue out there in Golden
Gate.
Now, I think everybody realizes that we're going to have a
potential for about 500,000 people that are going to be living east of
951. So the issue here today basically in front of us, as was brought
out earlier so everybody has an understanding, we're here to try to
figure out the best avenue for addressing a haul road for taking the
product out of the mines.
And I have to go along with a couple of my other Commissioners
that I think that the area that we need to really look at in addressing a
haul road, or haul route for the trucks, is at the Everglades road.
I think with the amount of traffic that's presently on Collier
Boulevard, I really think that we need to look at that avenue very, very
seriously in regards to addressing, because the growth is going to be
out in the northeast.
As everybody knows, recently we approved a huge complex out
there of a college and a town that's going to be built there. So I think
as the transportation director brought up, that we need to look at this
very, very closely, and hopefully we can get the support for this
particular route. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. Has staff
completed their presentation?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then we're going to go to public input.
Here's the way this works. Each person will get three minutes. We
have 25 people at least registered --
MS. FILSON: Twenty-six.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Twenty-six people registered right now.
That means even if we don't have any questions of you, it's going to
run pretty close to an hour and a half.
Page 242
June 28, 2005
Anyone who wants to speak will have an opportunity to speak as
long as they have registered. But is there anyone here who has not
seen this proposal or attended any of the other public meetings that
have occurred? There are a few, just maybe four or five people who
have not.
So most of you have seen this before and probably have had the
opportunity to speak before, and your comments have been made a
part of the record.
If you expect us to make a decision this evening, you're going to
be disappointed, because that's not what this is about. This is really
pretty much the same as what you've been to before, it's to collect
information, and we'll then direct the staff to continue studying it.
We're not going to tell them where there's going to be a bridge,
we're not going to tell them what road to widen. We'll just tell them,
keep talking with the public and gathering information and fleshing
out this plan.
So this is not a decision-making meeting. And in the interest of
conserving time, if you don't like some aspect of the plan, please tell
us what aspect you don't like. And if someone has already covered it,
you know, you have the option of just saying, hey, I agree with that
person.
If there are members of the -- of an association here and a
spokesperson can speak with them and then say, okay, everybody who
agrees with me, you can stand up, that's very impressive, we get the
point.
So what I'm saying to you is you don't have to tell us the same
thing four or five or 10 or 25 times. But nevertheless, everybody will
get a chance to speak. We're not going to try to cut you off. So let's
start with the first speaker.
MS. FILSON: Okay. I'm going to call two names, and if I could
have one person come up to each podium. The first one is Colleen
Hynds. She'll be followed by Leon Williams.
Page 243
June 28, 2005
MS. HYNDS: Good afternoon. My name is Colleen Hynds. I
have a place on Frangipani Ave. I've owned the place since '72. All
this that's going on, the rock pits and these haul roads and all this fill
that you need in these new elements that you guys are putting in, Ave
Maria, the ones that are due to come to the North Belle Meade area--
the Wilson extension going north will only let your trucks go out to
Immokalee Road. You can't use Golden Gate Boulevard.
That would still get your product out towards Ave Marie (sic).
You can use that way out Immokalee Road or even upgrading bridges
on Golden Gate Boulevard. You already designated to four-lane that
road. Four-lane or even more will give you more option for traffic.
When you are talking about putting the road down to Dump Road
or Blackburn, that's going to crowd an already terrible situation down
there. I was raised on that road. That Blackburn Road, that's my
house.
F or many years they've been promising us roads to get the people
out of the southern Estates into town and emergency evacuations to
help with fire, emergency, health, whatever. We have nothing out
there.
Since '72 when I bought my place on Frangipani Ave., they took
5th Street from us. We have to go all the way out to 10th, there's no
light to get out on the Boulevard. You're talking about a lot of people
that have been waiting and paying their taxes and trying to get our
people to support us.
Now, you've had AP AC out there. They did their deal, dug their
dirt, and all the promises were made. We'll take this bridge just for
AP AC. We'll give this little bridge to you out there in the south part of
the Estates.
We have to fight for a right to get in to Golden Gate Boulevard.
And as you know, the traffic out there is horrible. You could sit at
that intersection for almost 30 minutes trying to get a chance to cross
that road.
Page 244
June 28, 2005
The trucks that are coming out of APAC can't use Golden Gate
Boulevard because of the weight limits on the bridge. You guys gave
another rock pit behind them, and now you're going to suppress us
with no more new roads or accesses in and out of that area unless it's
for their benefit.
The people have been paying their taxes, coming to your
meetings, voting for you, and still you give the big business the
cooperation of your votes. We want something for us, too.
(Applause.)
MS. HYNDS: A long time waiting. I'm 44 yesterday. I'm tired
of waiting.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Leon Williams. He'll be
followed by Scott Plummer.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, for the record, I'm Leon
Williams, pastor of Unity Faith Missionary Baptist Church, and we're
right off that 16th Street route on the western end next to 951.
And we're here because we are concerned that as a church, we
may have a great impact on this community, and we do great things in
this community. And to have that road come right through our
parking lot and force us to no longer be a church, one of the few
African American churches in this community, would be a great
disservice to us.
We know that as a church and as Christians we don't limit God to
what he can do, but this community is in great need of our help. And
we are making great impact in this community. Although -- although
we don't -- we don't provide a number of jobs, but we help a lot of
people and we save a lot of people from having to experience some of
the bad experiences that come out of a community.
When people get to know God, they change. They don't rob and
steal anymore. And so our concern is that because we are a growing
church, 400-plus members, it is of great importance to us that we are
Page 245
June 28, 2005
allowed an opportunity to have an input on what happens as it relates
to where you -- how you guys strategize and what means you come up
with to better facilitate the Golden Gate Estates area.
We want to be informed and we want to be in tune, we want to
have a voice, we want to help, we want to be here to do the things that
are right. But we didn't know anything about this, and it just kind of
hit us in the back of the head.
So we want to be continually informed and have an input. And
Commissioner Coletta, you represent this area --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure.
MR. WILLIAMS: -- and we would like to talk with you so that
we can -- you can get to know us better so that we can understand and
know what's going on as it relates to the strategizing and planning of
roads and, et cetera, in the Golden Gate Estates area. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And on that note, I'm more than
willing to help you. I got a committee together that consists of about
250 people to get continuous updates. I'll get your name on the list. A
lot of people here have been receiving those mailings, sometimes two,
three, four a day, on a regular basis.
No reason why you should have to ever be in the dark on it. We
can bring you up real quick. And in some cases, I even formed a
number of the civic associations that are there today so you can have a
voice, and I'll make sure you still have a voice out there.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Scott Plummer. He'll be
followed by Tim Nance.
MR. PLUMMER: County Commissioners, Mr. Chairman, hello,
my name is Scott Plummer. I live at the end of the street on 17th
Avenue Southwest. I'm opposed to that extension through there, like
the pastor is, for the simple fact that it's not being fair. More of my
property is taken than my neighbor's.
Page 246
June 28, 2005
And my mother, who just retired, lives in my guesthouse. My
whole guesthouse is scheduled to be taken out if that road goes
through there. She's getting up in years. I want to take care of her. I'll
have no place else to put her.
Me and my wife talked about it. We'd be glad to give 100 foot
out of the front of our property, but that won't work -- because you
live on that road, Mr. Coletta, so you'd have to give that road up, too.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, you're wrong, you're wrong,
sir. You're absolutely wrong there, because I'm the one that fought for
the connection for 17th across the bridge, down to 951. I worked the
deal out with the school system, then they sold the land there. I'm
willing to sacrifice my road if I had to to make it work. So you're
wrong there, sir. That's all right though. I expect you to say
something like that.
MR. PLUMMER: No problem. But either way, my mother's
still not going to have a place to live.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, and the chances of it
happening in the next 15 years are remote. It will be a Commission
way distant --
MR. PLUMMER: Well, maybe she'll be dead by then.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- from this one that they'll be
dealing with it.
MR. PLUMMER: Well, thank you. That's all I needed to say.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, thank you.
MR. PLUMMER: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Tim Nance, he'll be followed
by Nancy Payton.
MR. NANCE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Tim
Nance. I'm a resident of the Northern Belle Meade.
And I realize this is just the first opening meeting for the
implementation of the Northern Belle Meade overlay, which is an
Page 247
June 28, 2005
innovative growth plan that's supposed to meet many needs north--
short- and long-term.
I am concerned though that what we've done in gathering this
information together in the short-term to meet the needs for DOT rock,
that the long-term road plan has become unrealistic and misprioritized.
Wilson Boulevard is the key -- is the keystone of the road system
in the central Estates since it's been platted. It was recognized in the
Northern Belle Meade overlay, which is a several-year investigation.
Of the eight alternatives proposed, and back in September, some
improvement to Wilson Boulevard was on almost all of them. Wilson
Boulevard has got the potential to link all your east/west corridors.
The improvements you're doing on Immokalee Road, Golden Gate
Boulevard, Vanderbilt to come, and it can even hook up to a very
southern point of County Road 951, although that's been discussed
that that's got problems.
This is the only potential north/south corridor that could be
developed to take traffic out of the Estates somewhere to south
Collier. Yet today, in today's proposals and the timetables that are
recommended by staff, this key corridor is effectively out of
consideration for improvement till 2015 or later. That's over 10 years.
In 10 years the Estates population is going to double or more.
The population, the center of the county is going to be east of County
Road 951.
With the current proposals and timetables for road development,
you're going to miss out on a lot of things. You're going to miss out
on access to I - 75, you're not going to have an eastbound evacuation
route.
There's many, many benefits of Wilson Boulevard that are
enumerated in the North Belle Meade overlay. I don't have to point
them out to you. You guys, most of you, were here when you wrote
them, so was staff.
A major problem that we have if we don't push ahead with the
Page 248
June 28, 2005
Wilson Boulevard corridor is your section 33 and 34 road that's been
approved as going through the NRP A. I guarantee you that if we don't
do something in the next couple years, that's going to be lost to
environmentalists, because somebody's going to find a bird feather or
cat hair, or something's going to happen, or an arrowhead, and it's
going to become sacred ground to somebody really quickly unless we
do something.
The process has been complicated. There's been a lot of
advocacy. Staff has tried in the short-term to tie the short-term and the
long-term goals to make one size fits all. I'm not sure that it fits
anybody at this point.
One thing that really annoys me with the advocacy is the
residents of south Wilson, which I'm going to direct directly, and they
can throw rocks at me later. They've worked diligently to eliminate
Wilson Boulevard from any consideration.
This same activism is what happened when the downsizing of
Golden Gate Boulevard took effect when it got dropped from a
beautiful six-lane design down to a minimum four-lane road that we
have today. It's going to halt the -- it's going to haunt the Estates for
years.
I'm asking, regardless of where we go with the short-term
planning, that additional consideration be given to the long-term
corridors. The timetables that have been written should not be
approved without additional consideration and serious objective
evaluation. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Nancy Payton. She'll be
followed by Sharron Miner.
MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton representing the Florida Wildlife
Federation, one of the coauthors of the North Belle Meade overlay.
The federation is resolutely opposed to any eastern routes
Page 249
June 28, 2005
through sending and natural resource protection area, that is NRP A,
sending lands, including an extension of Landfill Road east to
Everglades Boulevard.
Only a truck haul road is no consolation. Haul roads are the
cutting edge of public roadways. Any eastern road south of
Frangipani, be it a haul or a public road, will result in significant
adverse impacts on the transfer of development rights program.
An eastern alignment in North Belle Meade will be a growth
stimulator due to platted roads in the area, resulting in significant
adverse secondary impacts to the eastern sending and NRP A sending
lands.
Regarding the consideration of North Belle Meade road
alignments, the growth management plan requires the avoidance of
environmentally sensitive wildlife habitat to the extent feasible and
prudent.
In 2003, Collier County, Florida Department of Community
Affairs, East Naples Land Company, Collier Audubon, the Federation
and others, successfully defended the designation of sending and
NRPA sending lands in North Belle Meade for mining and
development interests.
The county's defense during that challenge -- the cat's hair has
been found -- is now our defense why North -- why Collier County
should not be contemplating a road or roads through North Belle
Meade's eastern sending and NRP A sending lands.
Florida Rock has said that they do not foresee hauling to the east.
Their research market is to the west. It is important to note there are
no other mines in North Belle Meade.
The executive summary states that mining in North Belle Meade
is, quote, needed for future road projects and private development in
eastern Collier County and also in eastern Lee and Hendry, unquote.
It is not Collier County's obligation to find rock and fill for
private development and for public projects in other counties at the
Page 250
June 28, 2005
expense of our environmentally sensitive lands.
It is the Federation's recommendation that staff and interested
parties study and pursue mine sources in the stewardship receiving
areas rather than proposing impacts to environmentally sensitive lands
in eastern North Belle Meade.
It is neither feasible nor prudent for Collier County to propose a
new road through the eastern sending and NRP A sending lands.
These were and are protected under direction from the state, the final
order that we all remember well.
They also present potentially insurmountable permitting and
mitigation hurdles due to wetland and panther habitat impacts;
therefore, any alignments through eastern sending and NRP A sending
lands should be abandoned, and a search for practical, realistic
alternatives initiated.
The Federation stands ready to continue working with staff,
landowners, and other interested parties to find workable solutions.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Sharron Miner. She'll be
followed by Keith Watchey.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just interrupt for a moment.
I promised at six o'clock to say hi to Aden and Taylor Scott, and so hi
Aden and Taylor. Thank you. Okay.
MS. MINER: Okay. Good evening. Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners, and members of the interested public, as a resident on
16th Avenue Southwest, I do agree for the need of a better residential
and non-residential road system in Golden Gate Estates.
Although 16th Avenue Southwest is still on the table, I believe
the major road grids that accommodate both commercial and
residential traffic should be developed first and foremost as part of the
multiple solutions to our need.
There are two major alternatives. One is Wilson Boulevard
Page 251
June 28, 2005
south; second, Everglades Boulevard. The proposed haul route via
Kean and Garland still requires the right of acquisition, whereas, the
easement along Wilson south is already in place.
By developing Wilson -- the Wilson south corridor route for a
haul route, there will be limited acquisition of rights, and it will be
keeping commercial traffic out of our residential neighborhoods.
By building this route now, it will benefit both the mining and
other commercial interests in the North Belle Meade area as well as
providing a much needed corridor with the potential of an interstate
connection that everyone could use. It will provide an emergency exit
route for catastrophic events.
I also -- it was also approved in concept and endorsed by the
three primary environmental advocacy groups in the Southwest
Florida. I contend that building the major grid road of Wilson
Boulevard south extension to Landfill Road should be carried out prior
to the proposed time frame of beyond 2015.
This route provides the least amount of impact on existing
residential neighborhoods. Without the development of the Wilson
south corridor, all future commercial will be forced upon our
residential streets.
Thank you.
(Applause. )
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Keith Watchley (sic). He'll
be followed by James Wayne.
MR. WATCHEY: Watchey.
MS. FILSON: Watchey, thank you.
MR. W ATCHEY: No one on 17th Avenue ever heard about the
Green Boulevard/16th corridor road proposal until April 13th. We
were given the news at the eleventh hour. I thought this was very
unethical.
I took the position of letting everyone know what the possible
consequences would be if a truck haul road was going to be built. I
Page 252
June 28, 2005
tried to find out all the information that I could. Several authority
figures that supposedly had knowledge of what was being played out
told me many different scenarios.
We had many neighborhood meetings and all decided to stand
together as a group with 16th Avenue Southwest representing
approximately 1 7 streets in the Estates, with the force behind it being
1 7th Avenue Southwest.
The infrastructure of Golden Gate Estates needs to be established
first before we start slicing apart neighborhoods. These corridors have
been submitted and are the most unneeded road structures at this time.
There appears to be some reason why the main roads aren't being built
first.
Wilson Boulevard South as a north/south road is paramount to
extend at this time. The city was originally done with that in mind but
somehow changed focus for some unknown reasons.
I also support Florida Rock's proposal of the original road -- I'm
sorry -- the original south Landfill Road and possible link up --link up
with I-75. It's been approved by three conservation societies and is the
least intrusive of Estates neighborhoods.
Road proposals have been changed on a weekly and now a daily
basis and have -- and have not been brought before the neighborhoods
that they will affect if a decision is made today.
On this point alone, I ask you to delay your decision until these
people have had a say in what amounts to their future and livelihoods.
Please reevaluate and re-prioritize long-term corridors.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is James Wane. He'll be
followed by Denise Garofolo.
MR. WANE: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners.
I'm concerned that we keep our road improvement plans properly
prioritized, and the previous speakers have covered some of this, but
I'm going to just continue with my short speech here.
Page 253
June 28, 2005
One day many of our streets may be connected; however,
piecemeal development of these streets will destroy the rural beauty of
the Estates.
The Golden Gate Area Civic Association has stated that they are
in favor of development of many roadways so no one street carries the
burden. I think this is a short-sighted idea. It will encourage
piecemeal road construction and ruin the Estates.
It's essential that we first construct our primary road
infrastructure to take the heavy burden of commercial traffic. With
that in mind, I would like to recommend that the board re-prioritize
two of the long-term corridors, namely the Wilson Boulevard
extension south to Landfill Road, and Landfill Road extension east to
Wilson Boulevard and maybe Glades. This would immediately solve
a major congestion problem and benefit the Estates residents and
Florida Rock.
Since the subdivision was platted, Wilson Boulevard has been
intended as a primary north/south major road in central Estates. The
time to use this well-planned road is now. Opening it now would
improve traffic flow tremendously for east Estates residents who
would then have an alternative route to south Collier, Naples, and
Marco Island, thus avoiding the poorly planned Golden Gate
Boulevard. Let's not make a terrible and costly mistake like Golden
Gate Boulevard again.
Since the workshop on April 13th, we have organized several
neighborhood meetings resulting in an overwhelming consensus of
opinion. To serve the residents and the land company of Golden Gate
Estates, please re-prioritize and extend Wilson Boulevard south to an
extension of Landfill Road east, and probably hook up to I-75 either at
Everglades or the previously suggested hook-up.
May I please at this time give the commissioners a petition from
the people of Golden Gate Estates who want this to happen? I have
one right here. May I pass it to you?
Page 254
June 28, 2005
Thank you for your time.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Pat Humphries. She'll be
followed by Linda Hartman.
MS. HUMPHRIES: My name is Pat Humphries. I am a resident
of Golden Gate Estates and on the board of directors for the Golden
Gate Estates Area Civic Association.
Today I am speaking for myself to reiterate a statement made to
this Board on June 18th, 2002, pertaining to the North Belle Meade
overlay and the land mining operation in that area.
The only way that the land mining operation can be compatible
with the Estates is to extend the haul road south from the mining pit to
Landfill Road or east to Everglades Boulevard. This excludes the
bridging of Wilson Boulevard going north, and, therefore, prevents the
burden of more dump trucks and other heavy equipment utilizing the
residential streets in the Estates.
We already have our share of this type of traffic; 800 trips per
day to be exact. We need more east/west routes in the Estates. And to
set the record straight, we did not prevent the six-laning of Golden
Gate Boulevard. Get your facts straight. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Linda Hartman. She'll be
followed by Joe Bonness.
MS. HARTMAN: Good evening, Commissioners, Linda
Hartman. I'm speaking for myself, but I was a vice chair of the master
plan -- Golden Gate Master Plan Committee, and I am a board
member of the -- and a past president of the Estates Civic Association.
Weare opposed to increasing the historic traffic on Golden Gate
Boulevard. By the way, it was Linda Baum and the Echo Group that
wanted only a two-lane road, and we just made a compromise with the
Estates so that we could at least get a four-lane, excuse me.
We are -- we need a multi-system route that will not solely
impact anyone neighborhood. We must have routes in all four
Page 255
.",_.,,~----"~ .".
.".,...~.~--."._.,..,..
June 28, 2005
directions that will shorten the distance for commercial and residential
traffic, yet allow our children to get safely to their schools.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Joe Bonness. He'll be
followed by Larry Hobkirk.
MR. BONNESS: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Joe
Bonness. I'm speaking as a resident and probably as a rock miner in
the -- for Collier County.
The need for rock in Collier County is tremendous. What you're
probably looking at from the Florida Rock mine is probably
somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 to 45 million cubic yards in
material that's going to be used in the Collier County area.
If this material was brought from Lee County, we'd probably be
looking at one and a half million to two million truckloads of material
that would have to go up and down I - 7 5 and would also be coming
from other areas that would be considered to be probably panther
habitat and such, as we've seen from the recent lawsuits that have been
brought up in Lee County.
And at the same time, we'd be looking at a tremendous impact as
far as the dollar value for the material coming down here. Thirty
million yards of material being trucked down from Lee County
represents probably somewhere in the neighborhood of about 15 -- or
$150 million worth of trucking costs, which would be a burden that
would be put on top of the residents of Collier County as they build,
and upon our own economy for building roads at the same time, not
bringing in the sales tax that you have for the material and not
collecting on the impact fees for the rock being removed from the
area.
One thing that I did notice during the presentation coming
through -- I'm very happy to see that we've gone and done an analysis
of the traffic and that that's going on -- is the recent development in
the last couple years that, with AP AC's expansion to the south, they
basically have cut off a corridor of 16th Avenue going east and west.
Page 256
June 28, 2005
I hope that this is going to be taken into consideration as to
what's going on so that we don't see this happen again in the possible
east/west connection on Kean as Florida Rock extends south. Let's be
cautious that we don't cut off our future east/west connections.
I agree with another speaker that we had earlier that our primary
system of Wilson down to Landfill probably needs to be the direction
that we have to go first before we start going in with the secondary
roads. Let's not -- or the residential streets. Let's not put all the
impacts on residential streets. Let's start out with the primaries and
then connect from there. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Larry Hobkirk. He'll be
followed by Mark Teaters.
MR. HOBKIRK: Good evening, and I have a little bit of a
speech impediment, so bear with me.
I thank you for this opportunity to come and express our concern.
And I'm glad to see you got Leon Williams off within three minutes,
because he sometimes gets carried away with his talking. He doesn't
do that good on Sunday.
It seems like we're a day late and a dollar short again when it
comes to our roads in Collier County. And I agree with any solutions
that this study brought up that would be a great help. And I'm -- I live
off of Wilson, by the way, and I'm in favor of the Wilson extension. I
talked to Coletta about that before probably a year ago.
But anyway, no one else has mentioned the fact that by doing
these other roads that we're talking about, or the study was talking
about, they would give all of our other county roads, Immokalee
Road, Golden Gate Boulevard, 951, they would give them some relief
as far as truck traffic goes, because they could use the extension on
Wilson to go to the dump.
They could use it to come back out and not go -- they could go
east and not go to 951 or go down the Boulevard or go down
Page 257
June 28, 2005
Immokalee Road, come out there, or go back out Immokalee Road to
go east. And so, I'm glad to see we're moving on that, but still we're a
day late and a dollar short.
If they have to use the Wilson extension to come out, maybe the
County DOT could look at putting Wilson to four lanes from the
bridge out to Immokalee Road and make the trucks use the left lane,
which would alleviate cars getting run over trying to turn in or get off
of Wilson into their residence.
Thank you for staying.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mark Teaters. He'll be
followed by Mario Valle.
MR. TEATERS: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is
Mark Teaters. I'm the president of the Wilson Boulevard South Civic
Association. Oh, by the way, Tim, no rocks.
Ours is not just any neighborhood. It's more like a traditional one
we all used to hear about. It's a place where neighbors work together
for the betterment of the community, a group of people that care
enough to be the only street in the Estates with our own civic
association.
Because of the location of Wilson Boulevard, we're concerned
about the bridging of our street to the south and the funnel effect that
this would create with trucks and commercial vehicles taking a
shortcut to the landfill, industrial park, and the mine.
Our quiet, peaceful life would be changed forever. The safety of
our residents, children, and the animals we share the street with will be
at risk. Our property values will suffer as well.
We understand that some day all of these roads will probably
need to be built to supply our future transportation needs. We also
believe that the trucks should be made to take a route that will not
impact residential neighborhoods. The haul route option to Landfill is
just such a route.
Page 258
June 28, 2005
We respectfully ask that you not consider the desires of any
group that would only gain financially from bridging Wilson
Boulevard. They have pitted neighbor against neighbor with
misinformation and rumors. Our residents did not participate in this.
We just care about saving our neighborhood. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mario Valle. He'll be
followed by Richard Roda.
MR. VALLE: Good afternoon -- or good evening, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you for allowing us to speak on this topic this
evening. I'm Mario Valle, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Golden
Gate Estates Area Civic Association.
We've tried to be an advocate and try and get the word out to as
many folks as we possibly can. We've held several meetings on the
matter.
It's been our policy and whatnot to be able to have and maintain
the historic truck traffic on Golden Gate Boulevard. We prefer to
have a haul route south onto Landfill Road and look at the long-range
transportation plans so that, one, the neighborhood is not impacted
adversely over another neighborhood, that we look at this long-range
transportation plan as a whole as opposed to one section over another.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: Richard Roda. He'll be followed by Susan
Sardina.
MR. RODA: Hi, Jim. How are you?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Fine, thank you.
MR. RODA: Standing before you reminds me of a story I heard
more than once of a young boy who stood before a giant.
But what I wanted to say was we did only find out about this
whole proj ect in April. It was quite a shock. And we went to the
Page 259
June 28, 2005
meeting at Golden Gate Community Center, and we were told by Mr.
Perry, my wife and I, with Hole Montes, I think, ofWilsonMiller, that
the only way that made sense was right through our back yard on 17th.
And it's been shown all through the evening here that there are
many other alternative routes to take the traffic and where to begin
and where to go with this.
But all I saw that night was a big red line through my back yard.
It wasn't a dotted black line or a little -- it was the big red one, and he
was adamant that this is what we needed to do. And so I can see that
we're making some intelligent decisions here, and I just want you to
know that we're watching this very closely, and we're hoping that you
will do what you know is right before God and man. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Cathy Owens. She'll be
followed by Warren Whitbeck.
MS. OWENS: Hi. Thank you very much. I really appreciate
you taking the time to put so much interest into this. I live on 10th
Street Southeast, which you don't hear a lot about because we are the
North Belle Meade road that comes out onto the Boulevard.
We fully support Tim Nance and Sharron Miner and Jeff Wane
in all these efforts to make these roads the right roads to help Belle
Meade, the North Belle Meade, all the future growth of what's about
to take place.
You said it yourself, we're looking down the road. And I see the
growth happening tremendously in North Belle Meade. If we do not
put the major infrastructure in now, we're going to be sitting in this
room again in 15 years at each other's throats.
So if we can just make sure that the decisions made are to the
best effect of everybody, we'd really appreciate it. Thank you so
much.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: Warren Whitbeck?
Page 260
June 28, 2005
MR. WHITBECK: Pass.
MS. FILSON: Peggy Whitbeck. She'll be followed by Roger
Rice.
MS. WHITBECK: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is
Peggy Whitbeck. I am a resident of Northern Belle Meade. I'm also
the president of the Frangipani Agriculture Community Civic
Association. Some call it Northern Belle Meade Civic, but it is not.
I'm here to speak for the Civic Association. Our residents are
overwhelmed with truck traffic and just residential traffic going out
onto 10th Street. We have one dilapidated bridge that hopefully Mr.
Coletta is helping us get repaired or replaced. We have no other way
to get out.
It is at a critical stage. If we have a problem in our area by 10th
Street Southeast, we cannot get out. Weare stuck. We used to be
able to get out at 5th Ave -- or 5th Street Southwest, but the AP AC
quarry fenced that off, so we can no longer use that, excuse me.
If you look at east of Wilson Boulevard, there is only one
two-lane road for all the people that live east of Wilson Boulevard,
including Everglades Boulevard. All these folks have to travel a
two-lane road. If you were ever to try and get on Wilson Boulevard--
or onto Golden Gate Boulevard from that area, it's impossible. It's
very cluttered. It's very, very frustrating and it's terrible when school
.. .
IS In sessIon.
I implore you to please consider the Golden Gate -- the Wilson
Boulevard bridge going south to wherever be -- Landfill Road would
be best. If you extend it over to Everglades Boulevard, that would be
even better. But we need a southerly route called the Wilson
Boulevard corridor, which the study was -- started out as. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Roger Rice. He'll be followed
by Sam Addams.
MR. RICE: Hello, Roger Rice, and I'm an attorney. I represent
Page 261
June 28, 2005
City Gate Development and CG2, collectively the owners of a
property known as City Gate Commercial Park. I believe it's up there
on the monitor there.
We have expressed our concerns about the short-term haul
routes. The purpose was not to be difficult. Our purpose was to point
out the problems with an approval of a haul road without an adequate
study of its impacts.
The study that was submitted has no estimate of the number of
trucks up in the earth mining operation. Further, there's no -- excuse
me -- no inclusion of any estimate of traffic from approved but not yet
built projects like City Gate, or the Benderson property across Collier
Boulevard from City Gate.
In addition, the traffic counts that were conducted by the
consultant were done in June of '04 and early July of '03. Golden Gate
High School opened up in August of '04. This new high school uses
Magnolia Pond and Utilities Drive. Also, the school board has plans
for an elementary school that will also be using this same entrance,
which is to open up in '07. This was also not taken into consideration
in the study.
It's difficult to see how truck traffic will work with the current
morning peak traffic and the school buses going to the high school and
to this new elementary school.
What we ask the board to do is to take its responsibility to require
the mine operator to show how the current road system will work with
its future traffic and to pay for any road improvements necessitated by
its future traffic.
If you could go to the second slide. This is an aerial, which is
951 looking south. You can see White Lake Boulevard or -- which is
Landfill Road, now known as White Lake. You can see Utilities
Drive and the intersection at 951. There is a light there that is
temporary, as has been noted by the transportation staff. That was not
noted in this Wilson corridor study.
Page 262
June 28, 2005
The part of our road system in phase one that is private is to the
north of Utilities Drive, and it is a two-lane curved road that you see
on that map, and then our main entrance is City Gate Boulevard north
at 951 where that light will be relocated.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. RICE: That intersection was designed to accommodate our
traffic --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you wrap it up?
MR. RICE: If you have any questions, I'll answer them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Sam Addams. He'll be
followed by Wayne Jenkins.
MR. ADDAMS: Good evening, Commissioners and Mr.
Chairman. I'd like to say that I'm speaking for myself and just some
generalizations. No matter what happens, as the county grows, the
truck traffic is going to grow.
My profession is a truck driver. It was mentioned that you're
talking about some of the people that wanted to run a route to
Everglades Boulevard, and then run north or south. With the limited
pit hours, you're going to triple your truck traffic trying to get the
same amount of material to job sites as if you find a shorter route.
I agree, the Wilson Boulevard to 75 or Everglades to 75, but
whatever you do, you're going to have to make a wide two-lane road
on a four-lane footprint or four-lane it.
Landfill road is -- there's a lot of problems there. You would
have to four-lane that road, plus control all the traffic going in and out
of the landfill before that could come out, and that's already been
brought up to it. But one other way to control traffic is to go ahead
and put shake ens (phonetic) in, just like on my street, on 13th. That
will slow everybody down. Thanks.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Wayne Jenkins. He'll be
Page 263
June 28, 2005
followed by Rick Haylock, and Rick will be your final speaker.
MR. JENKINS: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is
Wayne Jenkins. I guess I'm here for a gold star tonight. We took your
leads, Commissioner Coyle, and we did have a community meeting.
I'm representing the area of Garland Road. There are 25
residences that will be impacted by this decision if it comes down
Garland Road, including one new home that, with the modified S-turn
to come off of Kean, will come right through this house that's under
construction, so I'm sure that gentleman's opposed to it.
But I'd like to discuss a term with you that I think you've
probably heard before, it's called NIMBY. You've heard it from 16th
Avenue, you've heard it from Wilson, and now you're going to hear it
from us, I guess.
But it is -- it's a problem when you mix a large amount of dump
truck traffic in a residential neighborhood. I'm sitting here looking at
a little one of my neighbors, a little blonde towhead back here that is a
delight as we watch her growing up, and she's going to be one of our
future bicycle riders up and down this road, and I hate to see her out
there in the middle of a bunch of dump trucks.
But just to give you -- and I appreciate that this is not going to be
a decision tonight. This was really dropped on us very unexpectedly.
We've been following this. We thought that from looking at what
we've been seeing in the newspaper, that we're looking at an avenue
down south of Wilson to the Landfill Road as a possibility, or even
that wasn't -- didn't seem like a good solution, the idea of 16th Avenue
running all the way back to 951.
But this really caught us by surprise to pick up the paper, and all
of a sudden you've got dump truck traffic planned for Garland Road.
And so we're late coming into this, but it's because we didn't -- it was
sprung on us all of a sudden.
But contrary to what was printed in Naples Daily News, Garland
Road is not a dirt or gravel road. We do not use four-wheelers to get
Page 264
. --~----~-,
June 28, 2005
to our homes. And I apologize if -- I'm picking on Mr. Perry, that was
a quote attributed to him, and I'm not sure that was a correct quote, so
-- but just to let you know, we are a private area back in there. We've
done our own road improvements, we've paved the road by the people
pitching in together, and we just really would hate to see this come
through the middle of our little neighborhood there.
And we do realize it has to go somewhere, and it sounds like
everything I'm hearing tonight is the solution something south to tie in
with Landfill Road, which doesn't sound like a good solution -- or the
idea, I'm sure everybody says, is the interchange to take this dump
truck traffic out of there. It is needed, but we don't need it on Garland
Road.
As I said, I'm representing 25 residences, and rather than have 50
people come up, we did agree that I would act as their spokesman, and
we do have one other gentleman that wants to speak, just to make a
little different point, and we appreciate your time.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker, Mr. Chairman, is Rick
Haylock.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And by the way, thank you for your
consideration. I appreciate you doing that. Thank you. You get extra
points for that.
MR. HAYLOCK: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is
Rick Haylock. I'm also a resident of Garland Road, and I support
everything that Wayne Jenkins just went over in there.
And I wanted to add a few points as an individual owner. And
one thing is I went to your website, and I was looking at the truck haul
route that the East Naples Florida Rock was going to build.
Now, this is a truck haul route that is not a public road. This is
not going to be given -- be used by the normal traveling public. This
is a truck haul route that they would hold until 2010, according to
Page 265
June 28, 2005
what is in the website there.
So the land -- the East Naples Land Holding Company and
Florida Rock would have this road for five years. It would not be in
the public's interest that they would be able to use. This would be
only for hauling trucks, as I understand it, okay.
Now, the other considerations that WilsonMiller's looking at is
maybe the road network for public roads, and those, you know, would
be used for public roads. But the truck haul route specifically is for
the trucks.
And the agreement was that it would go down Wilson and down
to Landfill. Now, whether it goes east to Everglades, whether it goes
to -- west to 951, that is the route that it should take because it's the
route with least homeowners, the route that is not going to cross
through bus stops.
We have a bus stop on 23rd and Kean/Brantley. Thirty to 40
children during school days are standing at that bus stop, and the bus
stop comes down 23rd and makes a turn and stops in the middle of
Kean/Brantley and then has to back up and turn to go north on 23rd,
and all the children have to load up on that bus.
Now, with all these trucks coming across -- and you have 30, 40
children and the bus making awkward turns because there's no other
road for them to turn into, I can see the potential for some type of
disaster.
So we need to look at all these roads. We need to talk to the
people that live on them that know how these roads are. And I am of
the position that we should stick to the agreement of the Wilson
Boulevard extension going down to Landfill. That's what was agreed
upon, that's what was written, that's what was put in in the
Commissioner's meeting at that time back then for that meeting, and
that is what we expect to be held true in the long-term for the truck
haul route.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Page 266
June 28, 2005
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Norman, can you clarify this issue about
that route being private for some distance?
MR. FEDER: Right now Landfill, of course, is a public road.
What's being said is if they extend Wilson on their property, or
property where they get authority to extend it, and any extension of
Landfill, maybe over to the public landfill could well be a private haul
route and be totally private.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There are some homes though on
Landfill Road?
MR. FEDER: Yes. And I'm not saying that you would take
Landfill that is currently public today out of public ownership. I think
what is being said is that portions that they might build of Landfill
further to the east to connect up to Wilson could potentially be private
as they're using as a haul route, at least that portion of it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that would be four or five years, or
longer?
MR. FEDER: For the period of time that they haul. And I don't
know if there's a time frame. That's part of what we're going to
recommend to you, and I've got a set of recommendations to hand out
to you. But that's something that we need to look at.
We need to know, as was pointed out, actually, is the volume of
traffic, what's the mitigation going to be required if we allow a
connection of Landfill to 951. And if you will, I'll ask that -- Jim's
handing you out some recommendations. I'll put them on the
prompter, and maybe we can discuss them now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What happened to the extension
of Wilson south?
MR. FEDER: Nothing has happened to any of these. We're
going to continue to study them. Now, the extension of Wilson south
from their mine down across their property, that's something that they
Page 267
June 28, 2005
could do. Ifwe wanted a roadway, we would want them to maintain
that haul route, it will become the beginning of a public route, let's
say, in the future.
But right now, what we're saying, the extension of Wilson, the
possibility of 16th, or any other alignments, are things we need to
study further.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I recall back during the
Compo Plan amendment, that was, that was, I guess, my understanding
of how it was going to be, so --
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what changed? How did it
change?
MR. FEDER: Nothing has changed, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we got all these other
routes in there. How did they come up?
MR. FEDER: Essentially what you have is there's some
discussion of a possible Wilson extension in your long-range
comprehensive plan. We have not discounted that. But what you don't
have is a long-range plan and a full network analyzed for east of 951,
including -- and particularly in the Belle Meade area.
Comments that we need to get our roadway -- and we agree with
that. We're working right now on priorities and continuing to move.
And I mentioned three major east/west that we're developing in the
Estates, and this one to follow.
But we are recommending to you that, in fact, we continue that
study. We're not recommending that anything be taken off the table,
but we're also not recommending that we move on any of them now
until we've studied all the issues, worked more with the community
and with the environmental groups.
Does Wilson extension make a lot of sense? Yes, it does. Does
something like 16th that gives you the possibility of connecting
further to the west, or Pine Ridge, or White or Golden Gate? Ideally.
Page 268
June 28, 2005
But can you get those in there, can we work those issues through with
the community, with the environmental groups, and also extend it all
the way to the east to at least Everglades? Those are things we still
need to work some more on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it would be nice to take
Wilson all the way down to u.s. 41 for your reliever of951.
MR. FEDER: I think that may be a bit precluded these days.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You almost had Nancy Payton
jump out of her chair.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's all right, Nancy. Don't
move yet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I thought you left.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, she's still there
watching. She's short, she sits down below that guy in the front that's
big.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: She found a couple cat hairs out there
already.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Feder, these people
probably are wondering why they're here, some of them. I mean,
we're talking about, when you come up with a road plan, you have to
look at numerous corridors.
Would you explain how that process works so that people can
understand how some of these considerations got into the mix?
MR. FEDER: Yes. Basically what you're trying to do is you go
through a process of evaluating what your current demand is, what
your growth patterns are, and generate from that what are the demands
for lanes or accessibility, different facilities, and then you start looking
at different alignments.
You evaluate the environmental, social, and economic aspects.
What does it do to people living in the area, what does it do to the
Page 269
June 28, 2005
environment, what are the costs. You try to bring all those out and get
a lot of discussion with people in the community. That's what we're
trying to do in the long-range transportation plan update, and make
sure that everybody's say and everybody's issues come in. And it's
amazing how many good ideas you get when you get out and talk to
people that are actually driving it or looking at the issues every day.
So that's what we're about all through the county right now in the
long-range transportation plan update. That's why we're
recommending, that particularly in an area like North Belle Meade,
and for that matter, in the Estates, where that process hasn't been done
very strongly in the past.
Most of the planning effort has been basically west of 951 in
what is labeled the urbanized portion of the county. And that's where
most of the focus has been in the past.
The growth of the Estates, the demands out there and the fact that
we're pretty much developing that six-by-six grid, and most of what
we can do in the western portion of the county dictates that we have a
good plan, a plan that the community understands, sometimes agrees
with and sometimes disagrees with, but hopefully by consensus we've
got something that everybody's aware of, nobody's surprised, and it
meets those needs.
That's basically the process we're going through. This study was
foisted on an issue of a mining. It was oriented at how do we find a
way to not allow the trucks to further impact Golden Gate Boulevard
in that portion of the Estates, and also, does it give us an opportunity
to define some of that grid network in Belle Meade.
You see the extensive network that exists today. If you look at
the long-range plans that have preceded, there's not much of an
answer. There are some references in of the compo plan to other
alignments, not just Wilson. I've got that copy in front of me. But
they infer different things, but there's really not been a thorough
planning study.
Page 270
June 28, 2005
And I would venture to say that most of you probably haven't
been consulted as to what the roadway in that area, how is it going to
be developed, that network, and that's what we're going about trying to
do today.
So I appreciate your time. I realize it's sometimes rather
frustrating when it comes upon you. It's a planning effort. And for
those of you that want to drive on a certain route tomorrow, it takes
some time. For those of you that don't want that route in front of you,
that's probably good news, but the bad news is we need to decide what
the route's going to be to service this area as it continues to grow.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Let me interpret
what Mr. Feder just said.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, let's don't.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, seriously. When you get
right down to it, you have to look at numerous routes before you can
make a decision. And when you take a look at how the Estates is laid
out, there's certain combinations that would work sometime in the
future. And believe me, it's going to be a decision that's made by a
commission about three terms from now. That's about how far away it
IS.
They've looked at 25th before as being an extension all the way
through. They have looked at 16th before, they looked at 17th. This
is an ongoing process that keeps going on and on and on. It's part of
the MPO process.
Mr. Feder, in the history of Collier County, how many roads has
the Collier County Transportation Department -- or how many homes
has Collier County Transportation Department actually taken to build
the roads that they're building?
MR. FEDER: Condemnation, to my knowledge, none. In
voluntary, we've had a couple of duplexes I can think of that have
been voluntarily taken.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So the message is
Page 271
June 28, 2005
simple, we take it very serious when we're ever going to go onto
private property, even for right-of-way, even on roads that have been
established for years. Look what we went through with Livingston
Road. I don't know if people are aware of the pain that we went
through with that. Santa Barbara, another example.
Thank God Immokalee Road wasn't as bad, except for the Clerk
of Courts, which we won't get into right now. But we're going to get
there, and meanwhile, don't look for a dump truck coming through
your yard in the next 10 years. If it happened, it would happen
because of an act of God that we can't even foresee at this point in
time.
Now, I'm going to have to be honest with you with something,
we can't say today, eliminate one particular route from consideration
15 years from now. We don't have that power.
We occasionally have people come in here to see us when we're
planning a route out like the expansion of a road or whatever, and they
say, what are you doing? A Commission 12 years ago promised us
this would never happen. And my answer to them is very simple, go
to where they buried that commissioner, dig him up and beat him with
a stick, because he can't make -- he can't make conditions on future
commissions. It just can't happen.
It's a long process. You're going to be part of it, and you're going
to understand it just as well as everyone. April's about the time that
the whole thing started to break loose where they were starting to do
the study and get the information out.
So if you came into the information at that point in time, you're
on schedule. And I've got to tell you something. The first time they
sat me down and they showed me where 16th was being contemplated
right through the middle of the two streets, the hair stood up on the
back of my neck and I couldn't speak for about 90 seconds. It's scary
as anything when you look at --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I'd like to see that.
Page 272
June 28, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Are you still timing me?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm timing you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve staffs
recommendations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll read them off first so they
understand --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, yeah, I don't even understand
them.
But there's a motion on the table. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'll second this just so we get
the show on the road.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Can I ask some questions?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Time it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Okay, timer.
Number four, you're suggesting a haul route to Everglades
Boulevard?
MR. FEDER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yet almost everyone here that I heard
speak about that was talking about Wilson Boulevard.
MR. FEDER: The recommendation -- the mine will be basically
on the -- what would be an extension of Wilson. For them to get to
Landfill, they would have to build what one might call an extension of
Wilson or portion of Wilson down to Landfill, and then across
Landfill to 951.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But you're not recommending that?
MR. FEDER: Understand that when I say the connection to
Landfill in number three, yes, I am saying I'm recommending that if
we can find exactly what their impacts would be and that they provide
the needed mitigation for that connection.
Page 273
June 28, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So you're recommending two
connections?
MR. FEDER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: One to Everglades Boulevard and one
for the extension of Wilson down to Landfill Road?
MR. FEDER: Correct, a portion of Wilson, not necessarily
Wilson further north of the mining operation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: South of the mining operation.
And there is no other definitive guidance with respect to any of
the roads that have been discussed; you're just going to continue to
refine them through public input and meeting with the community?
MR. FEDER: But not ad nauseam, if you will. What I've told
you there, as part of our long-range transportation plan, which is
underway now, the east of951 study, which is underway now, that at
least by April of next year, we come back with a recommended
roadway network. It has been vetted, I hope, very, very well with this
community.
I don't expect everybody will be necessarily agreeing with every
part of it, but nobody will be surprised by any of it, and hopefully
we'll have something that we can give you full analysis of when we've
considered all of our options out in the Estates, and in particular in
Belle Meade.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Who was first?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I had my finger up. I
didn't push the button though.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Let me give you
some food for thought on this whole process. If we were able to come
up with two routes in and out, and even if they were private haul roads
for the very short period of time -- I know we can always come up
with some deal in the very near future to be able to get them away
from them if we do certain improvements or whatever -- if we took
Page 274
June 28, 2005
them out to Everglades, that exit off Everglades going to the -- which
direction are we going now, to the north, that --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Turn left, go north.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, you're going to go right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, going south.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: South.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: South, excuse me, south. That
would also, if they're going to have an exit there, I expect the public to
be able to use it, and I expect that that fill that they put in there to
build that exit to become public property, so when we get ready to do
the final improvements to that interchange, we can do it. What an
incentive to make something happen, even if we just had that one exit
going off.
And the other one down the Landfill Road, if we can ever come
to agreement with City Gate for their right way (sic) -- if you took a
look at that drawing that they put up there, the way they've got the
turns on there, I don't know how they're going to be able to turn onto
the road, but maybe I'm wrong on that.
There is a lot of work left to be done, and I think you've got a
mission to go with. And as far as those advocates for the bridging of
Wilson Boulevard, you heard the people on Wilson say that they
realize this is going to come. And just like everyone in this world,
they want to delay it as long as possible. That's human nature.
But the truth of the matter is, we all know that Wilson Boulevard
and Golden Gate Boulevard are the -- is the middle of the county. It's
where east meets west, north meets south, and that's where you've got
the dividing line.
When they laid this grid out a long time ago, I think the thought
process was there that eventually this would be the center. I wish to
God they'd planned some of these roads better as far as the width of
them and how they met together and put some more bridges in, but
we're going to deal with that as time goes along.
Page 275
June 28, 2005
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to say that I think we've
got a huge challenge here. I believe that the challenge is going to be
on the Blackburn Road segment, and I think that also we need to
really seriously address Everglades Boulevard and also that overpass
there and see if we can get that opened up.
To me it's going to happen. It's got to happen. We've got a
tremendous amount of growth scheduled out in this area. As
everybody knows, the way that -- we get e-mails every day, not just
Commissioner Coletta because that's his district, but all of us get
e-mails from people who -- residents who live out in Golden Gate
Estates claiming they have a difficult time getting back and forth.
And we're looking at all avenues. We're even looking at the
potential of having an industrial site out there someplace so that
hopefully we can turn the traffic around so that we don't have this
problem every morning and night. But it's going to take time, and if
they'll just bear with us. We're working on this.
It's a very serious matter. We realize that there's concerns by
everyone. But we have to look at the whole county in regards to
health, safety, and welfare. So just bear with us.
We'll do the right thing, but we're asking, you know, like -- as we
said earlier, we need your input, but it's a long-term study. And we're
here to make sure that we address every citizen's needs in this county.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I still need to get something clear.
Florida Rock has submitted a proposal, a request, for us to support
their effort to extend Wilson Boulevard south of their rock mining
operation and try to get a special entrance and acceleration lane onto
I - 7 5. That is not in any of these recommendations.
Why would we not start with that proposal before we start
running roads east to Everglades Boulevard?
(Applause.)
Page 276
June 28, 2005
MR. FEDER: Two reasons for the proposal that staff is
providing to you. First of all, while the Florida Rock Industry has
noted that their major interest for many years of mining operation is
going to be south and west, we still believe that if they keep telling us
this is mainly used for transportation and road building, our road
building program, as I just outlined to you, Immokalee Road, Oil Well
Road, Golden Gate Boulevard further east, Vanderbilt Beach Road
further east, are not to the south and to the west, but to the north and to
the east.
If that's the case, we'd like to divert some of that traffic and that
demand that will be coming in at Landfill and 951 onto Everglades,
which is to be a future north/south.
Additionally, if they are able, because they're going to provide
rock to the improvement of I - 7 5 to get a temporary access point, if we
could get that at Everglades Boulevard where we want a full
interchange, that gives us a leg up in the argument to maintain that and
to get the public access off of Everglades, which I agree, that while
we're continue to study out there, there's no question that that
interchange is critical to any transportation network for us to meet the
needs in eastern Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I would suggest that although that
might very well be a long-range goal, that might be reasonable. The
short-term need is to find some way to get those trucks out of the
residential areas and find an easier way for them to get to where
they're going. And in the short-term, they're going to be going I-75,
and because -- if we're going to be widening I - 75 sometime in the next
three to five years, you know, a lot of that rock is going to go there,
and --
MR. FEDER: It will go to 75 off of the 951 intersection, all of it
through that one intersection.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would hope that if we're successful--
and I guess Florida Rock must have some reason to believe that there's
Page 277
June 28, 2005
a chance of getting a special entrance onto I-75, and if they have
reason to believe that, why wouldn't we want to support them to do
that to see how far they can get?
If they can get an entrance onto I - 75 somewhere near the Wilson
Boulevard intersection with Landfill Road, that solves a lot of
problems, at least in the short-term. And it seems to me that that
should be the primary focus, again, for the short- to medium-term --
MR. FEDER: And we do not object to that, especially if they're
going to provide it to I - 7 5 construction to make sense of a shorter haul
route.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
MR. FEDER: Part of the other reason that we put this in, as I
said, too, the third and maybe incorrectly from what I heard from the
clapping behind me, was that out of the study some of the input we got
is the folks in the Frangipani area were looking at the opportunity to
establish a route that would go, let's say, from Wilson over to
Everglades and open up that area a little bit. Initially it would be a
haul route, but then it could then function as that in the future.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, and that might turn out to be a
long-term objective. But I'm suggesting maybe we prioritize these
things a little bit and accept the Florida Rock proposal to go south on
Wilson and try for an entrance onto I - 7 5 at that point and then pursue
some of these other things in a -- as part of a long-term solution, but
only after further consultation with the community.
MR. FEDER: If I understand what you're saying to us, modify
number four to talk about trying to connect Wilson to I-75. I'd like to
keep number four as a potential number five.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: For a long time -- I mean for long-term,
but that requires more coordination with the community to make sure
that we lessen the impacts, okay?
MR. FEDER: Understood.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the environmental community also,
Page 278
June 28, 2005
okay.
Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- I know these folks want
to go home just as much as we do, so I hope that we can wrap it up
here shortly --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and keep it to our -- keep it on
point. I'm going to amend my motion to amend number four,
recommendations to include a connection to Wilson to I - 75 so that
would be either-or.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll include that in my
second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you mind if I ask you to prioritize
those and ask that Wilson to I - 75 would be priority number one, and
then the other one would be a longer-term priority?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd agree to that in my second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. If the -- in my motion if
the -- if they're going to be hauling dirt for I-75, prioritize the Wilson
to I-75.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'm really concerned. I
think we're losing the initiative on this to see what we can get for the
public good. I don't need an exit just for trucks at Wilson Boulevard. I
need an exit at Everglades Boulevard that can also accommodate the
public. I need it sooner rather than later, that's why I'd give that top
priority and give them a little bit more to work with.
Put it on Wilson Boulevard, you just gave them a free ride, and
I'm not going to get one damn thing out of this thing, and all the work
I put into it's for nothing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's not true. There's nothing that
would prohibit us from proceeding with a regular interchange at
Everglades Boulevard.
Page 279
June 28, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, that's true, but this gives us
the incentive to make it happen sooner at somebody else's cost, too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, remember that the decision with
respect to making an interchange at Everglades Boulevard is really in
Tallahassee. And if -- whether we've got a line of trucks going out on
a special entry point at Wilson Boulevard is not going to change the
need for that interchange at Everglades Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, it won't, but the thing is, is
at the rate we're going with the interchange at Everglades Boulevard,
we're eight to 10 years away on an expedited schedule.
If we get Florida Rock involved in this, and that's their exit to
escape, I might be able to get it in two to three years and be able to
take a tremendous load off that end of the corridor.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that means you've got to build a
road eastward --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, no. Only thing you
need to do is have it with the exit going onto 75 off Everglades, would
be able to accommodate everyone, not just the truck traffic, but the
local traffic. The rest of the road would be a private haul road.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you're assuming that you're not
going to have a challenge from the environmental community.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm sure that I will.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that could tie it up for years.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Possibly, possibly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's a problem.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Stop smiling, Nancy. No,
actually, Nancy Payton's a very good advocate for which she
represents, and she brings a balance to this whole system, and I
appreciate her being here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And she will sue you if you bother her--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, you better believe it,
that's why I'm being really careful.
Page 280
"~,_........'--~
June 28, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So, okay. Can we get -- all right. We've
got a motion on the table.
Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can somebody read that motion
back so we know exactly what we've got in this motion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I'll try but I -- Commissioner
Henning, if you don't mind, it includes all of the recommendations on
display in front of you with the exception that number four will be
modified to include, as the first priority, Wilson Boulevard extension
south to I - 75 with a temporary connection to I - 75, and the haul route
connection to Everglades Boulevard south of Frangipani would be the
secondary priority; is that right, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I don't agree. I totally -- I
think we're losing an opportunity that's staring us right in the face, and
the public good's not going to be served, so I can't support the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saYIng aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Opposed is Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes 4-1.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Wait a minute, I haven't voted yet,
so I'll --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, you didn't vote?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm -- it's 3-2.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What are you doing?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 3-2 with Commissioner
Page 281
June 28, 2005
Coletta and Commissioner Halas dissenting.
And this is just a plan, folks. Nothing is going to get built. The
way these plans work is, you get a lot of alternatives, you evaluate,
and then when you talk with people you narrow them down, you keep
talking with people and you narrow them down to the ones that make
sense, and then you make a decision, and that will be sometime next
year.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much. I'd like
to invite anyone that hasn't had enough to do with roads tonight to a
meeting tomorrow night, seven p.m. at the Agricultural Extension
Building by the Fairgrounds. We're going to be handling all the road
situations in that part of the Estates in the Orangetree area and
everything that's happening as far as the construction of the roads, the
due dates, where the fill's going to be coming on. We're going to be
talking about just about any situation you can think of.
We will not be talking any more about this particular corridor,
because we don't know enough about what's going to happen at this
point in time. But if you have an interest in Immokalee Road, Randall
Road, Oil Well Road or Golden Gate Boulevard and those extensions
and how everything's going to tie together, please come to that
meeting, seven p.m. tomorrow at the agriculture extension building.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, ladies and
gentlemen. I'm sorry, sir. The public input is closed. If you'd like to
ask a question of staff or the Commissioners, see us right after we
adjourn. Is that okay?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm just saying that this is a
problem of growth.
CHAIRMAN COYLE; Yes, it sure is.
Thank you very much.
* * * * * Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner
Page 282
June 28, 2005
Halas and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted *****
Item #16A1
RESOLUTIONS 2005-236 THROUGH 2005-244: LIEN
RESOLUTIONS FOR THE ABATEMENTS OF PUBLIC
NUISANCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE 99-51, AS
AMENDED - LEONARD WISNIEWSKI 56405240008; JESUS
GOMEZ 62102840009; FILOMENO AND MARIA J. AVILA
35987920003; CLAUDE E. LA RUE 62092120004: LONNIE A.
GRAY 36249600002; WILLIAM M. HOOVER TR 71380840003;
WILLIAM M. STONESTREET 69810840006; CARLOS AND
CLAUDETT CASAI 71379680009; CITY OF NAPLES
41046800003 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A2 - Moved to Item #10M
Item #16A3
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "ASHTON PLACE",
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY - WITH
STIPULATIONS
Item #16A4
REIMBURSING ROBERT MURRAY, COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSIONER, FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE
EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOP ENTITLED "SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA: CAN NATURE SURVIVE OUR GROWTH?",
Page 283
June 28, 2005
HOSTED BY FLORIDA CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
STUDIES ON APRIL 1,2005, AT FLORIDA GULF COAST
UNIVERSITY - $35.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION BUDGET
Item #16B1
RESCINDING THE AWARD OF BID #05-3830 U.S. 41 EAST
(RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK TO ST. ANDREWS BLVD.)
LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION INSTALLATION TO
HANNULA LANDSCAPING DUE TO UTILITY RENOVATION -
DUE TO EMERGENCY WATER REPAIRS THE LANDSCAPE
AND IRRIGATION INSTALLATION HAS BEEN
RESCHEDULED TO APRIL 2007
Item #16B2
AUTHORIZING STAFF TO APPROVE ONE (1) WORK ORDER
(IN THE AMOUNT OF $51,650) FOR PROFESSIONAL DESIGN
SERVICES RELATED TO A LAP REIMBURSEMENT
AGREEMENT PROJECT TITLED "SIDEWALKS - VARIOUS
LOCATIONS" (CONTRACT #01-3290) - W/Q. GRADY MINOR &
ASSOCIATES P.A.- AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16B3
A COUNTY BUDGET AMENDMENT TO REFLECT THE
AWARD OF A $1 MILLION LOAN FROM THE STATE'S TOLL
FACILITIES REVOLVING TRUST FUND TO THE COLLIER
MPO FOR THE SS JOLLEY BRIDGE TOLL FEASIBILITY
Page 284
June 28, 2005
STUDY - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16B4
THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) 20 CUBIC YARD DUMP TRUCK
FROM WALLACE INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS, INC., (BID #05-
3731) FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF A 16 CU. YD. DUMP
TRUCK THAT WAS TOTALED IN A VEHICULAR ACCIDENT
ON MAY 17, 2005 - TOTAL REPLACEMENT COST FOR NEW
DUMP TRUCK $91.225.00
Item #16C1
APPROVING, EXECUTING AND RECORDING
SATISFACTIONS FOR CERTAIN WATER AND/OR SEWER
IMPACT FEE PAYMENT AGREEMENTS. FISCAL IMPACT IS
$58.50 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTIONS FOR LIEN - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16C2
RESOLUTION 2005-245: A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR A SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL
ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED
PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE
1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $20.00 TO
RECORD THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN
Item # 16C3
RESOLUTION 2005-246: A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR A SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL
Page 285
" ""'-"-"-
June 28, 2005
ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED
PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE
1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $20.00 TO
RECORD THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN
Item #16C4
RESOLUTION 2005-247: A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR A SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL
ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED
PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE
1994 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $20.00 TO
RECORD THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN
Item #16C5
RESOLUTION 2005-248: A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL
ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED
PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR
THE 1995 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. FISCAL IMPACT IS
$30.00 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN
Item #16C6
RESOLUTION 2005-249: A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR A SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL
ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED
PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE
Page 286
June 28, 2005
1996 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $20.00 TO
RECORD THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN
Item # 16C7
A MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COLLIER
COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT AND OTHER FlaW ARN
PARTICIPATION UTILITIES - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16C8
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO TRANSFER
WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT FUNDS FROM COUNTY
WATER-SEWER OPERATING FUND 408 TO FUND 518, (IN
THE AMOUNT OF $37,107.68) RISK MANAGEMENT FOR THE
PURPOSE OF COST SHARING IN THE PURCHASE OF A GAS
MONITOR SYSTEM FOR THE WATER, WASTEWATER AND
RISK MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENTS - AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16C9
ACCEPTANCE OF RIGHTS-OF-ENTRY AND UTILITY
EASEMENTS FROM TWO PROPERTY OWNERS REQUIRED
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 16-INCH RECLAIMED
WATER MAIN ALONG THE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF DAVIS
BOULEVARD FOR RADIO ROAD/DAVIS BOULEVARD
RECLAIMED WATER MAIN PROJECT NUMBER 740351 , AT A
COST NOT TO EXCEED $1.000
Page 287
June 28, 2005
Item #16C10
RESOLUTION 2005-250: A RESOLUTION APPROVING
EXECUTION OF A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AFFIDAVIT
PERTAINING TO THE COUNTY AND ROBERT G. FRANCE
AND TO APPROVE THE STATUTORY EXCHANGE OF
PROPERTY THAT TOGETHER WILL PROVIDE THE COUNTY
WITH THE NECESSARY LANDS IN FEE AND EASEMENT
OWNERSHIP REQUIRED TO MAKE AN EXISTING SITE FOR
PROPOSED RAW WATER WELLS VIABLE AND THAT
WOULD HAVE THE DESIRED EFFECT OF ELIMINATING AN
EXISTING ENCROACHMENT BY MR. FRANCE'S PRIVATE
PROPERTY ONTO PUBLIC LANDS
Item #16C11
RESOLUTION 2005-251/ CWS 2005-04: A RESOLUTION
APPROVING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT HARDSHIP DEFERRALS
FOR CERTAIN SEWER SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE
2005 TAX YEAR. THE FISCAL IMPACT IS $18.50 TO RECORD
THE RESOLUTION - TO PROVIDE ANNUAL ASSISTANCE
FOR PROPERTY OWNERS WHO ARE LIVING BELOW THE
POVERTY LEVEL AND WHO ARE AT RISK OF LOSING TITLE
TO THEIR HOMES AS A RESULT OF EACH ASSESSMENT
Item #16C12
A CHANGE ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $32,030.00 TO
WORK ORDER #HM-FT-02-01 WITH HOLE MONTES, INC.
FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO
INSTALLATION OF A 16-INCH RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM
INTERCONNECT FROM RADIO ROAD TO DAVIS
BOULEVARD, PROJECT NUMBER 74035 -TO HELP MEET
Page 288
June 28, 2005
EXISTING DEMANDS AND INCREASE THE RELIABILITY
AND MOVEMENT OF FLOWS TO FUTURE ASR WELLS
Item #16C13
BID NUMBER 05-3839 TO AAA GENERATOR & PUMP,
INCORPORATED FOR THE PURCHASE AND DELIVERY OF
FOUR (4) GENERATORS BY THE WASTEWATER
DEPARTMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $196,765 AND A
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER $196,765 FROM
RESERVES TO PROJECT 73958, PURCHASE GENERATORS
FOR LIFT STATION RELIABILITY -TO MAINTAIN
COLLECTION SYSTEM RELIABILITY AND PREVENT
OVERFLOWS DURING INCLEMENT WEATHER EVENTS
Item #16C14
AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY WATER SEWER DISTRICT AND THE SCHOOL
BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY FOR THE RE-ROUTING OF
THE LEL Y HIGH SCHOOL FORCE MAIN, AN AMENDMENT
TO WORK ORDER HM-FT-04-01, CONTRACT 00-3119 WITH
HOLE MONTES IN THE AMOUNT OF $42,400 AND A BUDGET
AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $398,000 FOR THE
SCWRF RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, 72508-
FOR MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS RELATED TO
RELIABILITY OF THE FACILITY
Item #16C15
A NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT AND
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
Page 289
June 28, 2005
ENGINEERING DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE WORK ORDER MPI-
FT -05-03 FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE AND
OVERSIGHT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $85,000
DURING UPGRADES AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE LIME
SOFTENING WATER TREATMENT PLANT PROCESS AT THE
SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT,
PROJECT 700571-WITH MALCOLM PIRNIE.. INC
Item #16C16
WORK ORDER #UC-113 WITH MITCHELL & STARK
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF
$694,300.00, FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FIRE AND IRRIGATION
WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AT BAY COLONY
SHORES IN PELICAN BAY, PROJECT NUMBER 74023 -TO
INSURE LONG TERM RELIABILITY AND TO ENHANCE THE
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM
Item #16C17
WORK ORDER #UC-114 WITH MITCHELL & STARK
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$230,500.00 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FIRE AND IRRIGATION
WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AT GEORGETOWN IN
PELICAN BAY, PROJECT NUMBER 74023 - TO INSURE LONG
TERM RELIABILITY AND TO ENHANCE THE OPERATIONAL
EFFICIENCY OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM
Item #16C18
CONTRACT 05-3831 "FEMA ACCEPTABLE MONITORING OF
DISASTER GENERATED DEBRIS MANAGEMENT" TO THREE
Page 290
June 28, 2005
(3) FIRMS. ANNUAL COST WILL BE DEPENDENT ON THE
NUMBER AND SEVERITY OF THE DISASTER EVENTS
OCCURRING ELIGIBLE FOR FEMA REIMBURSEMENT
DURING THE FISCAL YEAR - ON CALL, NO COST
CONTRACT WITH R.W. BECK, INC; DEWBERRY/SOLID
RESOURCES INC.; POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUE & JERRNIGAN
FOR A SINGLE FOUR (4) YEAR PERIOD WITH OPTION TO
EXTEND FOR TWO (2) ADDITIONAL ONE (1) YEAR PERIODS,
BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT
Item #16C19
THE COOPERATIVE PURCHASE FROM HILLSBOROUGH
COUNTY TO RETAIN SERVICES OF PUBLIC RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT GROUP (PRMG) IN THE ESTIMATED
ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $500,000 TO PROVIDE CONSULTING
SERVICES AND ANALYSIS FOR UTILITY RATE STUDY
UPDATES, IMPACT FEE STUDY UPDATES, DEVELOPMENT
OF BULK SERVICE RATES AND OTHER NECESSARY
UTILITY RELATED FINANCIAL CONSULTING SERVICES-
AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16C20
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER $417,999 FROM
FUND (408) RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCIES TO COVER
UNANTICIPATED EXPENSES IN THE WATER DISTRIBUTION
COST CENTER
Item #16C21 - Moved from Item #17A
RESOLUTION 2005-252: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A
Page 291
June 28, 2005
CHANGE TO WATER AND WASTEWATER IMP ACT FEE
SCHEDULE TWO OF APPENDIX A, ORDINANCE 2001-13, AS
AMENDED, TO CORRECT SCRIVENER'S ERRORS IN ORDER
TO CORRECTLY STATE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE RANGE IN
THE ASSESSMENT OF RESIDENTIAL WATER AND
WASTEWATER IMP ACT FEES AND TO ST ATE THAT THE
MINIMUM WATER IMPACT FEE IS $2.760 FOR ONE (1) ERC
Item #16D1
WORK ORDER #PBS-02-46 IN THE AMOUNT OF $82,378 TO
PBS, INC. FOR REPLACEMENT OF THE DOCKS AT
COCOHA TCHEE RIVER PARK
Item #16D2
A LIMITED USE LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE NAPLES
JUNIOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, INC., APPROVING USE
OF SPECIFIED COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY FOR
CONDUCTING A JULY 4TH FIREWORKS FESTIVAL - TO BE
HELD AT SUGDEN PARK
Item #16D3
THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF PLAYGROUND
EQUIPMENT FOR VINEYARD COMMUNITY PARK AND
IMMOKALEE COMMUNITY PARK FROM PIAZZA, INC. IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $140.000
Item #16D4
BUDGET AMENDMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $202,000 FOR
Page 292
June 28, 2005
THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT NUTRITION PROGRAM AND
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND SENIOR CONNECTIONS OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA TO PROVIDE NUTRITION SERVICES
- AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D5
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,074 TO
ENSURE CONTINUOUS FUNDING OF THE HOME CARE FOR
THE ELDERLY GRANT - TO ALLOW FOR UNINTERRUPTED
SUPPORT SERVICES TO SERVICES FOR SENIORS' FRAIL,
ELDERLY CLIENTS
Item #16D6
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $614,132 TO
ENSURE CONTINUOUS FUNDING OF THE COMMUNITY
CARE FOR THE ELDERLY GRANT-TO ALLOW FOR
UNINTERRUPTED SUPPORT SERVICES TO SERVICES FOR
SENIORS' FRAIL. ELDERLY CLIENTS
Item #16D7
BUDGET AMENDMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $105,706 TO
ENSURE CONTINUOUS FUNDING OF THE ALZHEIMER'S
DISEASE INITIATIVE GRANT- TO ALLOW FOR
UNINTERRUPTED SUPPORT SERVICES TO SERVICES FOR
SENIORS' FRAIL. ELDERLY CLIENTS
Item #16D8
Page 293
"...--~.-~
June 28, 2005
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $63,549 TO
ENSURE CONTINUOUS FUNDING OF THE OLDER
AMERICANS ACT GRANT IN THE HUMAN SERVICES
DEP ARTMENT - TO PAY IN-HOME SERVICE PROVIDERS
FOR THE REMAINING SIX MONTHS OF THE CONTRACT
Item #16D9
APPLICATION TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
FOR A PRIMARY CARE CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
CHALLENGE GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $154,500 TO
EXPAND PRIMARY CARE AT THE HORIZON'S CLINIC - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D10
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $409,600 TO
FUND PAYMENT TO THE CITY OF NAPLES UNDER THE
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR RECIPROCAL BEACH
PARKING - TO PROVIDE FREE BEACH PARKING FOR ALL
COUNTY AND CITY RESIDENTS AT ALL COUNTY AND CITY
BEACHES
Item #16E1- Moved to Item #10N
Item # 16E2
BID #05-3806, "PURCHASE OF PROTECTIVE FOOTWEAR" TO
VIC'S SHOE AND BOOT AND TO SAFETY SHOE
DISTRIBUTORS - TOTAL COST NOT TO EXCEED $25.000
Item #16E3
Page 294
June 28, 2005
BID #05-3853, "SMALL LANDSCAPE EQUIPMENT" TO
BARRY'S GRAVELY TRACTOR, CAPRI LAWN & GARDEN
EQUIPMENT, FLORIDA MOTOR SPORTS, NAPLES
ARMATURE WORKS, AND SMALL ENGINE WORLD.
EXPENDITURES ARE EXPECTED TO RANGE BETWEEN
$40.000 - $50.000 ANNUALLY
Item #16E4
UTILIZING THE CONTRACT BETWEEN PINELLAS COUNTY
GOVERNMENT AND CS STARS, LLC (CONTRACT NO. 034-
770-P) FOR THE PURCHASE OF A RISK MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION SYSTEM AT A COST OF $70,175 PER YEAR-
THIS WILL ALLOW RISK MANAGEMENT STAFF TO MORE
EFFICIENTLY UTILIZE EXISTING RESOURCES TO MANAGE
THE VARIOUS PROCESSES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE
DEPARTMENT THROUGH AN EFFICIENT CENTRALIZED
SYSTEM
Item # 16E5
CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.1, INVOLVING CONTRACT
#02-3371, "FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING CONSULTANT SERVICES"- TO CORRECT OR TO
CLARIFY CONTRACT CONDITIONS OR ALLOW
ADJUSTMENTS TO FEE SCHEDULES WI KIMLEY HORN AND
ASSOCIATES, INC., PBS&J, CH2M HILL, INC., TBE GROUP
AND DAVID PLUMMER & ASSOCIATES. INC.
Item #16E6
Page 295
June 28, 2005
AWARDING RFP NO. 05-3795 "ENTERPRISE CONTENT
MANAGEMENT STRATEGY" AND PROCEEDING WITH
PHASE 1 "ANALYSIS" IN THE AMOUNT OF $95,000.00 - TO
YIELD CONSIDERABLE SAVINGS IN STAFF TIME
PRODUCING, MANAGING AND SEARCHING FOR RECORDS,
AS WELL AS OFFSETTING THE COST OF OFFSITE STORAGE
AND ARCHIVING
Item #16E7
EXTENDING CONTRACT 00-3090 (INDOOR AIR QUALITY
SERVICES) UNTIL A NEW CONTRACT IS AWARDED - W/
PURE AIR CONTROL SERVICES
Item # 16E8
A THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH
ARNOLD PROPERTIES, INC., FOR THE CONTINUED USE OF
GARAGE/WAREHOUSE SPACE BY THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE
AT A TOTAL COST OF $36,639.60 - EXTENDED TO MARCH 1,
2007
Item #16E9
AUTHORIZING SUPPLEMENTAL PAY TO EMPLOYEES WHO
ARE RECALLED TO ACTIVE DUTY FOR THE ENTIRE
DURATION OF THEIR TOUR - NOT TO EXCEED FIVE (5)
YEARS
Item #16E10
AMENDMENT NO.5, FOR PHASE 2 AND PHASE 3 OF
Page 296
.'^.",,,,,--,,,-.,,--.
_..,.·,<".._.___,_M.
.-'-
June 28, 2005
CONTRACT #00-3173 WITH SPILLIS CANDELA DMJM TO
PROVIDE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION
ADMINISTRATION SERVICES FOR THE COURTHOUSE
ANNEX, FLOORS FIVE (5) THROUGH SEVEN (7) IN THE
AMOUNT OF $553,920.00 - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16F1
A TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY "C-2" GRANT
APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT WITH NAPLES
BOTANICAL GARDEN FOR $207,100 - FOR A PROMOTION
PLAN, TWO (2) PERMANENT ATTRACTIONS AND A
TRAVELING EXHIBIT
Item #16F2
CHANGE ORDER #1 TO BID #05-3744 WITH MARINE
CONTRACTING GROUP, INC. TO PROVIDE FOR THE
STORAGE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT OFF THE
BEACH IN THE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $42,300 FOR
THE HIDEAWAY BEACH JETTY AND T -GROIN
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT 90502 - TO PROVIDE FOR THE
STORAGE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT OFF THE
BEACH AT NIGHT
Item #16F3
CHANGE ORDER #1 TO BID #04-3667 WITH WEEKS MARINE
INC. FOR ADDITIONAL SAND PLACEMENT ON HIDEAWAY
BEACH AS PART OF THE HIDEAWAY BEACH
RENOURISHMENT PROJECT 905021 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$185,000 AND FOUR ADDITIONAL CONTRACT DAYS - AS
Page 297
June 28, 2005
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16F4
THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX CATEGORY "A" 10-
YEAR EXPENSE AND REVENUE PROJECTIONS AS PART OF
THE BUDGET PROCESS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16F5
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
CLEVELAND CLINIC FLORIDA HOSPITAL NAPLES NON-
PROFIT CORPORATION FOR USE OF THE MEDICAL
EXAMINER FACILITY TO CONDUCT AUTOPSIES - TO
PERFORM NON-MEDICAL EXAMINER AUTOPSIES
Item #16F6
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $268,625.03 FOR
THE PURCHASE OF TWO REPLACEMENT AMBULANCES -
AS REPLACEMENTS FOR TRUCK #7 (DESTROYED IN A
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT) AND TRUCK #22 (DUE TO
AGE AND MILEAGE)
Item # 16F7
RESOLUTION 2005-253: A RESOLUTION FIXING THE DATE,
TIME AND PLACE FOR APPROVING THE SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED AGAINST THE PROPERTIES
WITHIN PELICAN BAY - SEPTEMBER 8,2005 AT 5:05 P.M. IN
THE BCC CHAMBERS
Page 298
June 28, 2005
Item #16F8
BUDGET AMENDMENTS - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16F9
AWARDING BID #05-3836 TO PANTROPIC POWER FOR THE
RENTAL OF GENERATORS AND SPOT AIR COOLERS FOR
THE 2005 HURRICANE SEASON AT AN INITIAL COST OF
$18.750 - TO SUPPORT SHELTER OPERATIONS
Item #16F10
WAIVING THE FORMAL COMPETITION AND APPROVING
NEGOTIATION OF AN ANNUAL CONTRACT NOT TO
EXCEED $125,000 WITH THE FERGUSON GROUP FOR
FEDERAL LOBBYING SERVICES - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16G1
A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR $10,000.00 TO FUND COSTS
INCURRED TO COMPLETE THE SECURITY SYSTEM FOR
THE FEDERAL INSPECTION STATION (U.S. CUSTOMS
OFFICE) AT THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT - DUE
TO EXPENDITURES INCURRED AFTER THE EXTENDED
COMPLETION DATE OF JULY 1.2004
Item #16I1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR
REFERRED
Page 299
June 28, 2005
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by
the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 300
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
, June 28, 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. May 14, 2005-May 20,2005.
2. May 21, 2005-May 27,2005.
3. May 28, 2005-June 3,2005.
B. I>istricts:
C. Minutes:
H: DatalF ormat
_____...._.'__-0
1. Hentage Greens Community DeveloDment District: Minutes of January
24,:'005; Agenda of January 24,2005; Financial Statements Unaudited
December 31, 2004.
1.
Collier County Library Advisory Board: Agenda for May 25, 2005;
Minutes of April 27, 2005.
2.
Collier County Citizens Corps Advisory Committee: Minutes of May 18,
2005; Agenda of May 18,2005;
3.
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee: Agenda of
June 13,2005.
4.
Pelican Bay Services Division: Agenda of June 1,2005; Minutes of May
4,2005; Statement of Revenues and Expenditures, period ending May 24,
2005.
5.
a. Pelican Bay Services Division Board Budget Sub-committee:
Minutes of May 18, 2005 ,_____~_.__........._..."'-,.- - 11 ~
---
t;.:..."......, _.
Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory Coniinittee: lNiMltGgrøF'April
20,2005; Agenda of May 18,2005; Minutes otiMay 18, 2005; 1\gendr 1-
of June 15,2005; Fund 156 Budget October 20df to Sept~~~r.2MtJ l d.-ß" DD
_.. _0.. .... ___........-
I
"
:i
'.. , I-l
:l . L IV
L~ ~_ t
.. ..-
-- ..... .... -... ...-::;, .........
~d·_'_'_·~"_.'."",_ ........
6. Development Services Advisory Committee: Revised Agenda of May 4,
2005; Minutes ófMay 4,2005.
7. Collier County Airport Authority: Minutes of May 16,2005; Form 8B
Memorandum of Voting Conflict - Robert Doyle re: Hole Montes DEB
Plan Update; Form 8B Memorandum of Voting Conflict - Robert Doyle
re: Hole Montes Everglades Taxiway North; Form 8B Memorandum of
Voting Conflict - Robert Doyle re: Hole Motes Marco Taxiway.
8. Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of May 10.
2005; Minutes of April 12, 2005.
9. Collier County Planning Commission: Minutes of April 21, 2005;
Agenda of June 2, 2005.
10. Bayshore Beautification MSTU: Agenda of June 8, 2005; Minutes of
May 11,2005; Fund 160 Budget October 2004 to September 2005.
11. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage MSTU: Agenda of June 8, 2005.
12. Collier County Historic and Archaeological Preservation Board: Agenda
of May 25,2005; Minutes of March 16,2005.
13. Golden Gate MSTU Advisory Committee: Agenda of June 14,2005;
Minutes of May 10, 2005; Fund 156 Budget October 2005 to September
2005.
14. Caribbean Gardens Blue Ribbon Committee: Minutes of April 14, 2005.
15. Environmental Advisory Council: Agenda of June 1,2005; Minutes of
May 4,2005.
H:DataIFormat
·__c_~__"'
June 28, 2005
Item #16K1
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$34,000.00 AS TO PARCEL NOS. 162 AND 762 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. BEVERLY J. GATTL
ET AL., CASE NO. 03-2551-CA (GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY
PROJECT 60027) (FISCAL IMPACT $21, 448.00) - STAFF TO
PAY THE SUM OF $21,448.00 TO FORMAN, HANRATTY &
MONTGOMERY TRUST ACCOUNT, FOR PROPER
DISBURSEMENT
Item #16K2
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 187 IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. PATRICKJ. MURPHY, ET AL.
CASE NO. 03-5270-CA (VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD PROJECT
NO. 63051). ADDITIONAL COST TO COUNTY IS $107,331.00
AFTER CREDIT FOR AMOUNT DEPOSITED - AS DETAILED
IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #17 A - Moved to Item #16C21
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2005-30: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 2003-61, AS AMENDED WHICH IS ARTICLE
II OF CHAPTER 49 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF
LAWS AND ORDINANCES, INCORPORATING CHANGES TO
Page 301
.-._....."....".~...__.,"-_.>"......_._"_._,_._"-~,.¥"
June 28, 2005
THE FEE PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM BASED ON
DIRECTION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Item #17C
ORDINANCE 2005-31: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 74 OF THE COUNTY'S CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 2001-13
(THE COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE
ORDINANCE, AS AMENDED), PROVIDING FOR AN
INCREASE IN BOTH THE CUMULATIVE AND INDIVIDUAL
ANNUAL AMOUNT OF IMPACT FEE WAIVERS PROVIDED
TO CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS, A MAXIMUM AMOUNT
OF WAIVER ELIGIBLE TO QUALIFIED APPLICANTS AND
THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT THA T MAY BE CARRIED
FORWARD AS A PROGRAM BALANCE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH PREVIOUS DIRECTION PROVIDED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Item #17D
ORDINANCE 2005-32: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AS ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NUMBER 02-49
THE COLLIER COUNTY FIRE PREVENTION AND
PROTECTION CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTER 58, FIRE
PREVENTION AND PROTECTION, ARTICLE II, FIRE SAFETY
STANDARDS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
COLLIER COUNTY, BY AMENDING SECTION 58-26,
PERTAINING TO ADOPTED STANDARDS AND CODES OF
THE NATIONAL FIRE CODES PUBLISHED BY THE
NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION (NFPA);
Page 302
June 28, 2005
AMENDING SECTION 58-27, PERTAINING TO AMENDMENTS
TO ADOPTED FIRE CODES, SPECIFICALLY NFP AI, 2003
EDITION; REPLACING SECTION 58-28, PERTAINING TO
AMENDMENTS TO THE ADOPTED LIFE SAFETY CODE,
SPECIFICALLY NFPA 101,2003 EDITION; PROVIDING FOR
THE INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND
SEVERABILITY~ AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Item #17E
ORDINANCE 2005-33: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
SCHEDULE EIGHT OF APPENDIX A OF CHAPTER 74 OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,
(THE COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE
ORDINANCE) PROVIDING FOR THE INCORPORATION BY
REFERENCE OF THE AMENDED IMPACT FEE STUDY
ENTITLED "COLLIER COUNTY LIBRARY FACILITIES AND
ITEMS IMPACT FEE UPDATE (WITH REVISIONS IN APRIL
2005) AND APPLYING THE ANNUAL INDEXING
ADJUSTMENT TO REFLECT AN INCREASED NEW RATE OF
$180.89 PER ONE-THOUSAND (1,000) SQUARE FEET OF
LIVING AREA FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL LAND USES, AND
PROVIDING FOR A DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE OF AUGUST
L 2005.
Page 303
--"., - ^."'"'-'.~._---'."^
June 28, 2005
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:01 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
~w.~
FRED W. COYLE, C aIrman
ATTEST:
DWIGHT ~~tr~a~~~K, CLERK
~:~~E~C~~ þ~
.;;L ',:. '~'''' ,(_'_ ,)"-~'" ,,: '~, :~ I
~ , ,'IßJJJ';:'''V' ", ,
Attest as to.Chð 1n1ân<""j,,~'
Itftftature on f v.:'" .....' ·,.~F
.... f1 ..~. I ,,,;,t.; \ï )
These minutes approved by the Board on "'-.JuI!:! J6. Â./)() 5, as
presented ~ or as corrected .
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 304
June 28, 2005
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, June 28, 2005
Attorney/Client Session/Agenda Item 12B Settlement
proposal/litigation expense issues of the pending litigation case of
Collier County versus Lexington Insurance Company, case number
2:05-cv-216-FtM-33SPC, now pending in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers, Florida.
Present: Chairman, Fred W. Coyle
Frank Halas
Tom Henning
Donna Fiala
Jim Coletta
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Page 1
June 28, 2005
(The following is the attorney-client closed session on agenda item
12B.)
Item #12B
PURSUANT TO SECTION 286.011(8), FLORIDA STATUTES,
THE BCC MET IN EXECUTIVE (CLOSED ATTORNEY-CLIENT)
SESSION ON TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 2005 IN THE COMMISSION
CONFERENCE ROOM, 3RD FLOOR, W. HARMON TURNER
BUILDING, COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301
EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA. THE BOARD, IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION, DISCUSSED: SETTLEMENT
PROPOSAL/LITIGATION EXPENSE ISSUES OF THE PENDING
LITIGATION CASE OF COLLIER COUNTY V. LEXINGTON
INSURANCE COMPANY, CASE NO. 2:05-CV-216-FTM-33SPC,
NOW PENDING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, FORT MYERS,
FLORIDA.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. For the record, David Weigel,
County Attorney, the only attorney here today. With us is Jim Mudd,
County Manager, and four commissioners, and momentarily anyway,
absent Commissioner Coletta.
(Commissioner Coletta now present.)
MR. WEIGEL: And we're here to talk about a proposed
settlement relating to a lawsuit called Collier County versus AEC
National, Inc., although this particular lawsuit is with Lexington
Insurance Company. And what we have here -- it's Collier County
versus Lexington, claim number 158505, and it's in federal court.
What we had here is, in a contract that we had for the
construction of the additional jail facility, the consulting engineer,
which is AEC National, Inc., essentially defaulted in their ability to
Page 2
June 28, 2005
continue with the work.
The principal of the company died. He also was the, practically,
chief, cook, and bottle washer as far as engineering capability. The
family-owned company attempted to continue, failed to continue. It
came to a notice of Collier County through project management when
subcontractors were not getting paid, with payments being made to the
contractor. The money wasn't making it.
They were called onto the carpet, eventually defaulted in their
work, and the Board of County Commissioners was informed, and this
company was terminated.
The county attorney office was authorized to sue them for the
breach, and we did. They failed to even defend the case, quite
frankly. And in June, I believe, of '04, thereabouts, we received a
judgment for $687,000 against a company that had gone bankrupt, that
had ceased to exist and had many, many debts.
Well, to have a judgment is one thing, but to be able to collect on
it is another. We reviewed very carefully and saw that there was, in
fact, one insurance policy in place, which we felt was a long shot, but
we went and filed on it anyway, and it was against the Lexington
company.
The Lexington Insurance Company initially had denied coverage
to the claim that we had filed because when we simultaneously filed
against the company in chief, the insured, we also put them on notice,
and they had done nothing during the course of the lawsuit.
But we did extensive discovery and found a document wherein a
Lexington employee of some authority had at one point indicated to
AEC, the company that failed and that we terminated, that they were
covered. So picking up on that, we filed -- we filed, they removed the
case to federal court, and shortly thereafter though they did come to us
with a discussion of settlement.
Now, they also with their letter of settlement provided us a thesis
as to why they thought the claim would not prevail. And I must say
Page 3
--.-
June 28, 2005
that their legal arguments are fairly good. I cannot predict what a
court of law would say.
The type of policy that was in place typically does not cover
non-negligent situations, and the death of the chief engineer mayor
may not fall into this policy . We believe that there are some potential
weaknesses to our case under the only policy we have the claim
against, which is a professional liability policy. Typically those are
errors and omissions types of things.
Nonetheless, they made an offer to compromise. I think, in part,
considering nuisance suit in federal court. They knew that they'd be in
for the long haul. Their offer was 150,000. Jackie Hubbard brought it
to my attention, and she eXplained to them that this was something
that would have to go to our Board of County Commissioners.
I told Jackie before we bring it back for a board in light of the
fact that we had a judgment for $687,000, that I would not meet with
the board and -- this was for Jackie to tell the insurer -- that I would
not meet with the board and even propose acceptance of settlement
unless they raise their offer to at least 190,000. They did that. They
did raise it to 190,000, and that's the offer that we have right now.
That's pretty much it in a nutshell. We do believe that some
lessons to be learned from this may be that, notwithstanding that we
typically have various types of insurance -- additional insurance in
place for contractors in chief, that risk management and purchasing
probably ought to require additional insurance of the other actors that
are involved in these capital improvement projects.
When you include additional insurance requirements on
contractors, whether they're consulting engineers or others, that will
increase the base price to some degree, at least one would expect that
that would occur as part of their overhead costs.
But we seem to have just enough problems with contracts over
time, that perfonnance bonds, payment bonds, insurance for
negligence or other things are probably still worth having in pocket to
Page 4
-,~~-~-,--
June 28, 2005
go after. In this particular case, the company itself failed and had no
assets to go after whatsoever. So I think to some degree we might
consider this found money going after them on the policy that -- the
one policy that's in place.
So my recommendation is, of course, to answer any questions,
but I would recommend that the board consider favorable this offer of
$190,000 to end the lawsuit with the Lexington Insurance Company in
federal court.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sounds like a good compromise
tome.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Probably all we're going to get, right?
MR. WEIGEL: I think it's all we're going to get.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There are no assets or property?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the company has nothing to go after.
We've got the judgment, but there's nothing there. So we can spend
money and resource attempting to get more and put ourselves a bit at
risk under the policy.
It's, once again, one of these things where they've been caught
with possibly an erroneous statement to their insured, the company
that went belly-up, telling them they had coverage, although they
denied it to us all along. I think it is embarrassing, and a court could
take them to task to some degree, but it doesn't necessarily mean that
we'd be made any more whole than the 190,000 that they're offering.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do they owe us any money, David?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the insurance company, no. We sued them
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I meant the AEC.
MR. WEIGEL: Oh, yes. Well, we've got a judgment of
$687,000 against them. They already had left a trail of unpaid
subcontractors.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we paid them. They didn't pay
the subcontractors?
Page 5
June 28, 2005
MR. WEIGEL: We paid them -- well, we paid them to a point,
but when the communications broke down in the sense that we learned
that subcontractors had done work and AEC had quit doing its work,
we didn't leave anybody in the lurch, but I think there's subcontractors
that probably have some problems with AEC as well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I guess I'm trying to figure out
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're out $690,000.
MR. WEIGEL: No, we're not. Actually we're not. Thanks,
Commissioner Henning, for bringing this up. We had to go out then
and get another contractor to come in and fill the shoes here. So, yes,
we went through a new solicitation process. But someone else came
in and picked up --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Picked this up.
MR. WEIGEL: -- this project and has gone forward from there.
And, clearly, the tirade was a bit skewed in the sense that the
bases for the new contract were different. Some work was done, some
work's not done. But it's not as if we had paid 687,000 and went down
a rat hole and someone didn't pay. We had to go out and get someone
to perfonn the work that this company didn't do. But we got a
judgment on the contract with them for $687,000. So from that
standpoint, it's a bit of a positive.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just because they defaulted, right?
MR. WEIGEL: Because they defaulted. It's a default judgment
we got against them. They did not even come to court to defend it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Coming at it a different way, David, how
much did our cost on the project increase as a result of this?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I thought about that, and I didn't have __
and I didn't have and don't have infonnation to give you right now.
But the fact is that that's not a factor that we can bring against this
Insurance company.
Page 6
June 28, 2005
MR. MUDD: You asked the question, about $2 million.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: About $2 million more? Wow. That's a
big hit.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that factual or just a guess?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, I'm pretty well in the ballpark.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do we have a motion?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, not here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we need a motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll make a motion for approval of
accepting $190,000.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, we'll bring it up for discussion when you
reconvene.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We'll do it at BT Boomers.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll lead the way.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll buy the first plate of 50 wings.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, all right then. They have good
wings over there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: With no breading on them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They have good wings.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, if it's -- the record's still being
made here, so if there's no further discussion, we will close item 12B.
The closed session will be over.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Everybody in agreement?
MR. WEIGEL: And if there are no other agenda questions on
other items, I'll just jump upstairs and see you about one o'clock. But
I'm here if you have any questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can we strike from the record the
comments about the wings?
Page 7
June 28, 2005
*****
There being no further business for the CLOSED SESSION, the
CLOSED SESSION was concluded.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALSÆX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
~_w. C ~_
FRED W. COYLE, Gâairman
.~ . ,@ ~'''\li'r~ì,
i":;.'¡'! . . ",
ATTEST:' ',~. . ': ''',
DWIGjIT~~~Ú~~~~K;; CLERK
.- ,-- \ .:
[)e
Attest IS to Cha t ,..an ¡ S
.t !lnure onl,. ~~.
These mInutes approved by the Board on . \3, atf)') , as
presented v or as corrected .
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 8
~_~_'_'_;_·.__.H"'w"'_·""_"_'.~_~__'__'_."'_"'"' .